Plus, I've always been intrigued about De Gaulle/France stripping Pétain of all his honours and ranks/titles except Maréchal.
Did he explain why? For stabilising the French Army after the mutinies of the poilus?
Well it was the court who decided that but De Gaulle could have overridden them.
De Gaulle wasn't a fan of the trial viewing it as a partisan trial designed to settle scores. The jury voted to execute Pétain but the judge asked the execution not to be carried out because of his age and contributions during World War I.
It explains why you can't understand most of what goes on here.
I understand there are some rather thick right-wing loonies here who really can't stand anyone disagreeing with them.
Almost worthy of classification as "True-Blue Snowflakes".
Your pretty insecure aren't you.
If you're going to insult people at least try to get you're [sic] grammar right. Otherwise they may get the impression that an expensive education isn't all its [sic] cracked up to be.
QED
Yes. Stick to acronyms and you can't go far wrong. But still take care about apostrophes.
PS. Petain (and France) should simply have refused to collaborate with Nazi Germany in 1940 and formed a government in exile, potentially in one of its overseas territories. Sure, someone else might have been willing to be the Quisling but he was naïve.
He bought 28 months of collaborative partial home-rule in just a portion of France, and it simply wasn't worth it - not least because they ended up with blood on their hands.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
My theory: Dyson paid for the wallpaper, on condition the taxpayer would stump up for a couple of vacuum cleaners. And perhaps a ventilator or two, in case Boris nearly died of COVID-19 again.
IF you were reading the news you would know Dyson has made strenuous efforts to correct what was effectively a smear campaign against him by certain news outlets, who got some reporting spectacularly and deliberately wrong.
This comment could be construed as libellous and Dyson is a very wealthy man.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
To be honest, the same ought to have been true of the "piles of bodies" comment. A bland, two paragraph written statement issued to the press at 2 pm Monday would have killed the story by now.
Teaching gives one a great insight into human depravity, and the coverup is always worse than the initial offence. I can only conclude that Boris doesn't want to admit to himself that a) he likes ridiculously expensive stuff that he can't currently afford and b) he's prone to temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way. Neither of those matches his self-image.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
My theory: Dyson paid for the wallpaper, on condition the taxpayer would stump up for a couple of vacuum cleaners. And perhaps a ventilator or two, in case Boris nearly died of COVID-19 again.
IF you were reading the news you would know Dyson has made strenuous efforts to correct what was effectively a smear campaign against him by certain news outlets, who got some reporting spectacularly and deliberately wrong.
This comment could be construed as libellous and Dyson is a very wealthy man.
I'm quaking in my shoes now. I really am.
Please, please, PB - delete my comment and save me from the vengeance of this wealthy man! (Not really.)
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
In addition to the online thing, JL is suffering because of lockdown. JL is an excellent store to be sure but that doesn't mean it can always provide what a listed building deserves. Bespoke=our national heritage assets.
The private flat isn't listed AFAIK - a relatively modern insert surely? So listing would not cover its decor.
Listening to brief reporting of the Biden speech, it has a "Maggie but approaching a similar place from the opposite direction" feel about it.
One of Maggie's distinctives was that the pace of change became a way to drive further change before the last change had been absorbed by opponents.
Blair tried a similar thing but bottled it on some matters - as he admitted.
'Sunshades Joe' (he may be going for 'Maverick') is trying - I think - to "Europeanise" some aspects of US Govt (child benefit, gun control ...) to some extent, and he is driving it like Maggie because he can only be sure of I think two years.
But he isn't going to get to even where Maggie left it in one jump.
Because of the incredibly short Congressional terms, he has the mid terms coming up - which drives the whole "First 100 days thing".
Is he perhaps worried by Obama's Glad Confident Morning that ran over lunch?
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
JL are struggling because the quality of the product and the shopping experience is not representative of the price. It’s a shame because I used to love it but I went recently and it felt a bit like walking round a sad TK Maxx. Hardly any stock, badly laid out, few assistants on hand, rip off prices for mdf. It’s a better experience online but the sheen has definitely rubbed off the brand.
I like John Lewis. I still have the sofa in London I bought 28 years ago from them. I still buy lots from them but they are not as good as they once were and some of their stuff is expensive for what it is. I think they expanded too much and now they have people in charge who have no retail experience which is a worry. Plus they have cut back on staff which is silly because customer service was something you could really rely on with them. I hope they survive though. I enjoy shopping there and, on the whole, shopping bores me.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
My theory: Dyson paid for the wallpaper, on condition the taxpayer would stump up for a couple of vacuum cleaners. And perhaps a ventilator or two, in case Boris nearly died of COVID-19 again.
IF you were reading the news you would know Dyson has made strenuous efforts to correct what was effectively a smear campaign against him by certain news outlets, who got some reporting spectacularly and deliberately wrong.
This comment could be construed as libellous and Dyson is a very wealthy man.
I'm quaking in my shoes now. I really am.
Please, please, PB - delete my comment and save me from the vengeance of this wealthy man! (Not really.)
You don't get sued, though do you , you gutless coward?
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
No it isn't. Which is why the "John Lewis nightmare" comment, if true is a bit snobbish. JL are good enough for very many people in the country and seen as aspirational for many others. And, frankly, when you are only in the place for a short while, have a dog and a baby on the way, spending money on expensive furnishings is bloody daft.
£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly.
The only issue here is if there has been a breach of the rules on donations and/or some quid pro quo. If I had to guess I would plump for the former rather than the latter. The reason it is a story at all is because the PM has been too high handed to provide an explanation when first asked so it looks as if he's got something to hide when the truth may be less sensational than it seems.
I saw this in 'Wallpaper' yesterday. Not yours is it?
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
That's fine. Just take away full diplomatic status from each of the EU nations at the same time.
After all, we don't have separate diplomatic status with Alabama.
Is that what they want? Or do they want cake, eat cake?
The government has caved, and your position is nonsense.
It looks to me like it's a quid pro quo for the full trade deal ratification.
I disagree.
Full trade deal ratification by the EU was the ordinary course of events.
Failure to ratify by the EU would have effectively torn everything up - it would be a nuclear option. If that happened I would expect the U.K. to respond in kind.
You can’t achieve protection against a potential nuclear option via a diplomatic snub. It speaks to the UK’s lack of post-deal leverage, also an inclination to spiteful short-termism.
I like John Lewis. I still have the sofa in London I bought 28 years ago from them. I still buy lots from them but they are not as good as they once were and some of their stuff is expensive for what it is. I think they expanded too much and now they have people in charge who have no retail experience which is a worry. Plus they have cut back on staff which is silly because customer service was something you could really rely on with them. I hope they survive though. I enjoy shopping there and, on the whole, shopping bores me.
They were a bizarrely good place to buy tech as their warranty was longer than some manufacturers.
Regarding the latest Scottish poll I wonder if the bump for SLab will simply lead to a small seat exchange between them and the SCons - while leaving the SNP sitting pretty. I think this is a real danger.
If that means Angus Robertson fails to win Edinburgh Central on the constituency vote as Labour gain it from the SCons not the SNP that is still bad news for Sturgeon.
I think the Conservatives have a good chance of taking Moray from the SNP on today's poll and the LDs of taking Caithness, Sutherland and Ross from the SNP with Unionist tactical votes.
On the list the SNP will lose seats to the Greens and the Tories will lose seats to Labour
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
My theory: Dyson paid for the wallpaper, on condition the taxpayer would stump up for a couple of vacuum cleaners. And perhaps a ventilator or two, in case Boris nearly died of COVID-19 again.
IF you were reading the news you would know Dyson has made strenuous efforts to correct what was effectively a smear campaign against him by certain news outlets, who got some reporting spectacularly and deliberately wrong.
This comment could be construed as libellous and Dyson is a very wealthy man.
I'm quaking in my shoes now. I really am.
Please, please, PB - delete my comment and save me from the vengeance of this wealthy man! (Not really.)
You don't get sued, though do you , you gutless coward?
I believe there are also calls for Tory councillors to stand down on the same grounds.
Regarding the latest Scottish poll I wonder if the bump for SLab will simply lead to a small seat exchange between them and the SCons - while leaving the SNP sitting pretty. I think this is a real danger.
The Greens will win more regional seats, taking seats from both.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
In addition to the online thing, JL is suffering because of lockdown. JL is an excellent store to be sure but that doesn't mean it can always provide what a listed building deserves. Bespoke=our national heritage assets.
The private flat isn't listed AFAIK - a relatively modern insert surely? So listing would not cover its decor.
Both 10 and 11 Downing Street are listed (which will include all curtilage of properties) and most of surrounding area is listed.
You should be looking forwards to ending this debate once and for all by winning a second referendum, like in Quebec.
Or are you still running scared, terrified that really you'd lose?
I respect the once in a generation 2014 vote, the Quebec vote was 15 years after the first not just 7 years.
Have it now even if No narrowly wins the Nationalists will demand another within a year as the UK government allowed one before a genuine generation had elapsed
PS. Petain (and France) should simply have refused to collaborate with Nazi Germany in 1940 and formed a government in exile, potentially in one of its overseas territories. Sure, someone else might have been willing to be the Quisling but he was naïve.
He bought 28 months of collaborative partial home-rule in just a portion of France, and it simply wasn't worth it - not least because they ended up with blood on their hands.
I think people forget Pétain was 84 in 1940 and within a few year was suffering from memory lapses and soiling himself in front of people.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
That's fine. Just take away full diplomatic status from each of the EU nations at the same time.
After all, we don't have separate diplomatic status with Alabama.
Is that what they want? Or do they want cake, eat cake?
The government has caved, and your position is nonsense.
It looks to me like it's a quid pro quo for the full trade deal ratification.
I disagree.
Full trade deal ratification by the EU was the ordinary course of events.
Failure to ratify by the EU would have effectively torn everything up - it would be a nuclear option. If that happened I would expect the U.K. to respond in kind.
You can’t achieve protection against a potential nuclear option via a diplomatic snub. It speaks to the UK’s lack of post-deal leverage, also an inclination to spiteful short-termism.
It should have been the normal course of events but the European Parliament was playing silly buggers delaying and delaying ratification. There were people mouthing off about refusing ratification, and potentially even rejecting it, unless or until we resolved the NI Protocol to their satisfaction.
So they were trying to weaponse something that should have been a formality. So we responded in kind on something that equally should be a formality but would piss them off.
Now they have stopped messing around. So we have too. The whole thing is rather childish, but equally childish is the fact they started it.
When people are trying to weaponise formalities then responding in kind is a diplomatic way to resolve it.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
In addition to the online thing, JL is suffering because of lockdown. JL is an excellent store to be sure but that doesn't mean it can always provide what a listed building deserves. Bespoke=our national heritage assets.
Clearly it can because that is why Boris and Carrie wanted it changed. A "John Lewis nightmare". It was taste rather than because the private bedroom needed to be covered in some special sort of wallpaper.
The idea that Boris and Carrie are in a position to lecture anyone else about taste is rather risible really. She looks like a an average Sloane with nothing remotely elegant or special about the way she dresses and Boris .... well he's just a scruff.
Regarding the latest Scottish poll I wonder if the bump for SLab will simply lead to a small seat exchange between them and the SCons - while leaving the SNP sitting pretty. I think this is a real danger.
If that means Angus Robertson fails to win Edinburgh Central on the constituency vote as Labour gain it from the SCons not the SNP that is still bad news for Sturgeon.
I think the Conservatives have a good chance of taking Moray from the SNP on today's poll and the LDs of taking Caithness, Sutherland and Ross from the SNP with Unionist tactical votes.
On the list the SNP will lose seats to the Greens and the Tories will lose seats to Labour
Hope so - any news on Hartlepool - I've assumed a Labour hold from the start and presume that is more likely now. I expect Street and Houchem to hold their Mayoralties but wonder about the West of England one.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
My theory: Dyson paid for the wallpaper, on condition the taxpayer would stump up for a couple of vacuum cleaners. And perhaps a ventilator or two, in case Boris nearly died of COVID-19 again.
IF you were reading the news you would know Dyson has made strenuous efforts to correct what was effectively a smear campaign against him by certain news outlets, who got some reporting spectacularly and deliberately wrong.
This comment could be construed as libellous and Dyson is a very wealthy man.
I'm quaking in my shoes now. I really am.
Please, please, PB - delete my comment and save me from the vengeance of this wealthy man! (Not really.)
You don't get sued, though do you , you gutless coward?
Please, please have mercy on me. I don't think you realise quite how terrified you have made me.
In fact I feel quite ill. But actually I feel a bit better now and I think I may call a lawyer, to discuss whether the trauma you've just put me through may be actionable.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
I like John Lewis. I still have the sofa in London I bought 28 years ago from them. I still buy lots from them but they are not as good as they once were and some of their stuff is expensive for what it is. I think they expanded too much and now they have people in charge who have no retail experience which is a worry. Plus they have cut back on staff which is silly because customer service was something you could really rely on with them. I hope they survive though. I enjoy shopping there and, on the whole, shopping bores me.
They were a bizarrely good place to buy tech as their warranty was longer than some manufacturers.
Yup, I've bought every television I've owned since 2002 from John Lewis, five year warranty as standard, the one time I had an issue was 4 years and 11 months after I bought it and they gave me a brand new model as a replacement, no fuss.
Regarding the latest Scottish poll I wonder if the bump for SLab will simply lead to a small seat exchange between them and the SCons - while leaving the SNP sitting pretty. I think this is a real danger.
If that means Angus Robertson fails to win Edinburgh Central on the constituency vote as Labour gain it from the SCons not the SNP that is still bad news for Sturgeon.
I think the Conservatives have a good chance of taking Moray from the SNP on today's poll and the LDs of taking Caithness, Sutherland and Ross from the SNP with Unionist tactical votes.
On the list the SNP will lose seats to the Greens and the Tories will lose seats to Labour
Hope so - any news on Hartlepool - I've assumed a Labour hold from the start and presume that is more likely now. I expect Street and Houchem to hold their Mayoralties but wonder about the West of England one.
It is all about the Tories squeezing the BXP vote in Hartlepool
One of Labour's biggest issues is Starmer himself, namely that he has brought the tactics of a barrister into politics. He concentrates on tactics rather than the overall strategy, going for the "gotcha" moment that works in the courtroom but doesn't in the political sphere. People get tired of it and it is not as though they trust lawyers anyway.
You saw it with the prominent Remainers as well in the Brexit debate - Soubry, Grieve, Clarke, Gauke *. They thought they were oh so clever with their court cases, use of procedures, using the Lords etc etc, the sorts of tactics that might win you a court case and show how clever you are but to the general public, looked like a bunch of t0ssers trying to use every method, fair and foul, to overturn the result.
One of Labour's biggest issues is Starmer himself, namely that he has brought the tactics of a barrister into politics. He concentrates on tactics rather than the overall strategy, going for the "gotcha" moment that works in the courtroom but doesn't in the political sphere. People get tired of it and it is not as though they trust lawyers anyway.
You saw it with the prominent Remainers as well in the Brexit debate - Soubry, Grieve, Clarke, Gauke *. They thought they were oh so clever with their court cases, use of procedures, using the Lords etc etc, the sorts of tactics that might win you a court case and show how clever you are but to the general public, looked like a bunch of t0ssers trying to use every method, fair and foul, to overturn the result.
I should have added that I know Gauke was a solicitor, not a barrister, but he had the same sort of legalistic approach.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
In addition to the online thing, JL is suffering because of lockdown. JL is an excellent store to be sure but that doesn't mean it can always provide what a listed building deserves. Bespoke=our national heritage assets.
Clearly it can because that is why Boris and Carrie wanted it changed. A "John Lewis nightmare". It was taste rather than because the private bedroom needed to be covered in some special sort of wallpaper.
The idea that Boris and Carrie are in a position to lecture anyone else about taste is rather risible really. She looks like a an average Sloane with nothing remotely elegant or special about the way she dresses and Boris .... well he's just a scruff.
Sure, but taste is part of the responsibility of maintaining and furnishing a listed building. Personally I think it should, like other government heritage buildings, especially when Grade 1 listed as Downing Street is, be kept in top-notch nick and nothing to do with funding from various occupants or their personal choice.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
JL are struggling because the quality of the product and the shopping experience is not representative of the price. It’s a shame because I used to love it but I went recently and it felt a bit like walking round a sad TK Maxx. Hardly any stock, badly laid out, few assistants on hand, rip off prices for mdf. It’s a better experience online but the sheen has definitely rubbed off the brand.
I like John Lewis. I still have the sofa in London I bought 28 years ago from them. I still buy lots from them but they are not as good as they once were and some of their stuff is expensive for what it is. I think they expanded too much and now they have people in charge who have no retail experience which is a worry. Plus they have cut back on staff which is silly because customer service was something you could really rely on with them. I hope they survive though. I enjoy shopping there and, on the whole, shopping bores me.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
No it isn't. Which is why the "John Lewis nightmare" comment, if true is a bit snobbish. JL are good enough for very many people in the country and seen as aspirational for many others. And, frankly, when you are only in the place for a short while, have a dog and a baby on the way, spending money on expensive furnishings is bloody daft.
£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly.
The only issue here is if there has been a breach of the rules on donations and/or some quid pro quo. If I had to guess I would plump for the former rather than the latter. The reason it is a story at all is because the PM has been too high handed to provide an explanation when first asked so it looks as if he's got something to hide when the truth may be less sensational than it seems.
I saw this in 'Wallpaper' yesterday. Not yours is it?
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
That's fine. Just take away full diplomatic status from each of the EU nations at the same time.
After all, we don't have separate diplomatic status with Alabama.
Is that what they want? Or do they want cake, eat cake?
The government has caved, and your position is nonsense.
It looks to me like it's a quid pro quo for the full trade deal ratification.
I disagree.
Full trade deal ratification by the EU was the ordinary course of events.
Failure to ratify by the EU would have effectively torn everything up - it would be a nuclear option. If that happened I would expect the U.K. to respond in kind.
You can’t achieve protection against a potential nuclear option via a diplomatic snub. It speaks to the UK’s lack of post-deal leverage, also an inclination to spiteful short-termism.
Further delay and ongoing "provisional" application of the deal was perfectly possible, the European Parliament was threatening to do just that as well as renegotiating certain aspects.
Diplomatic snubs can and do matter with the EU because it takes itself as a power-bloc so seriously.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
JL are struggling because the quality of the product and the shopping experience is not representative of the price. It’s a shame because I used to love it but I went recently and it felt a bit like walking round a sad TK Maxx. Hardly any stock, badly laid out, few assistants on hand, rip off prices for mdf. It’s a better experience online but the sheen has definitely rubbed off the brand.
I like John Lewis. I still have the sofa in London I bought 28 years ago from them. I still buy lots from them but they are not as good as they once were and some of their stuff is expensive for what it is. I think they expanded too much and now they have people in charge who have no retail experience which is a worry. Plus they have cut back on staff which is silly because customer service was something you could really rely on with them. I hope they survive though. I enjoy shopping there and, on the whole, shopping bores me.
PS. Petain (and France) should simply have refused to collaborate with Nazi Germany in 1940 and formed a government in exile, potentially in one of its overseas territories. Sure, someone else might have been willing to be the Quisling but he was naïve.
He bought 28 months of collaborative partial home-rule in just a portion of France, and it simply wasn't worth it - not least because they ended up with blood on their hands.
I think people forget Pétain was 84 in 1940 and within a few year was suffering from memory lapses and soiling himself in front of people.
Then, he should have simply retired and stayed out of it.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
In addition to the online thing, JL is suffering because of lockdown. JL is an excellent store to be sure but that doesn't mean it can always provide what a listed building deserves. Bespoke=our national heritage assets.
Clearly it can because that is why Boris and Carrie wanted it changed. A "John Lewis nightmare". It was taste rather than because the private bedroom needed to be covered in some special sort of wallpaper.
The idea that Boris and Carrie are in a position to lecture anyone else about taste is rather risible really. She looks like a an average Sloane with nothing remotely elegant or special about the way she dresses and Boris .... well he's just a scruff.
Sure, but taste is part of the responsibility of maintaining and furnishing a listed building. Personally I think it should, like other government heritage buildings, especially when Grade 1 listed as Downing Street is, be kept in top-notch nick and nothing to do with funding from various occupants or their personal choice.
Agreed. The PM gets a flat above the office and a country house. Paint the bloody flat magnolia every 5 years and tell the occupants to put up some picture if they don't like the colour and buy their own bloody furniture if they don't like what's provided. It's not hard to make a place look nice. The arrogant entitlement of all this is what grates.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
JL are struggling because the quality of the product and the shopping experience is not representative of the price. It’s a shame because I used to love it but I went recently and it felt a bit like walking round a sad TK Maxx. Hardly any stock, badly laid out, few assistants on hand, rip off prices for mdf. It’s a better experience online but the sheen has definitely rubbed off the brand.
I like John Lewis. I still have the sofa in London I bought 28 years ago from them. I still buy lots from them but they are not as good as they once were and some of their stuff is expensive for what it is. I think they expanded too much and now they have people in charge who have no retail experience which is a worry. Plus they have cut back on staff which is silly because customer service was something you could really rely on with them. I hope they survive though. I enjoy shopping there and, on the whole, shopping bores me.
My last experience, attempting to shop for a bed with them at their Basingstoke store last summer, was poor. There were 5 or 6 staff running about (all but one looked like a teenager) but they were spread over the whole floor. None clocked I needed help and, even when I asked, it took a very long time for anyone to come over to assist; that person didn't know anything about the product.
That said, I bought curtains from them 3 years ago that are fantastic and of great quality.
They overexpanded too quickly and broadened their brand too much, IMHO. Some CEOs get so fixated on growth they lose sight of their core business.
I had always assumed that the 'progression' of home furnishing and interior design went:
Cheap stuff (the old MFI) -> IKEA -> John Lewis -> High end retailer (which I don't know) -> bespoke tailor made furniture.
I would imagine the level of the population that goes which would be
20%/40%/25%/12%/3%
ie 60% of the population buys stuff in IKEA or cheaper.
The majority of the population probably mixes and matches.
A key of interior design is that a few designer pieces lift the rest.
I suspect peer group pressure does a lot here. I've no doubt that many interior designers would find my house hideously bourgeois, but I don't have any of them in my social or professional circles and don't care anyway.
I like high-quality bed linen (White Company), high-quality sofas and chairs (Sofalogy), and curtains that have a forest/wood motif (there are woods at the end of my garden), as well as decent bathrooms & kitchens.
My home is built and designed for easy functionality and comfort, not to impress fashion snobs.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
I hope you are wrong, yet I fear you could be right.
The more benign explanation for this innumerate nonsense is that it's a last line of defence against growing pressures to accelerate reopening. That if they keep banging this drum they'll be able to stick to 17 May and 21 June rather than open up earlier..?
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
JL are struggling because the quality of the product and the shopping experience is not representative of the price. It’s a shame because I used to love it but I went recently and it felt a bit like walking round a sad TK Maxx. Hardly any stock, badly laid out, few assistants on hand, rip off prices for mdf. It’s a better experience online but the sheen has definitely rubbed off the brand.
I like John Lewis. I still have the sofa in London I bought 28 years ago from them. I still buy lots from them but they are not as good as they once were and some of their stuff is expensive for what it is. I think they expanded too much and now they have people in charge who have no retail experience which is a worry. Plus they have cut back on staff which is silly because customer service was something you could really rely on with them. I hope they survive though. I enjoy shopping there and, on the whole, shopping bores me.
My last experience, attempting to shop for a bed with them at their Basingstoke store last summer, was poor. There were 5 or 6 staff running about (all but one looked like a teenager) but they were spread over the whole floor. None clocked I needed help and, even when I asked, it took a very long time for anyone to come over to assist; that person didn't know anything about the product.
That said, I bought curtains from them 3 years ago that are fantastic and of great quality.
They overexpanded too quickly and broadened their brand too much, IMHO. Some CEOs get so fixated on growth they lose sight of their core business.
I used to shop there quite often, especially around Christmas time shopping for people I didn't have inspiration for, it was good to walk around and just find something that would suit different people. They were a good go-to place for a bit of everything.
Haven't been there much in years now though and not just because of the pandemic, if I want a go-to place for a bit of everything now that's Amazon. Can browse from my sofa while watching TV, find something and its in my house the next day.
Retail like that is dying. I know some here hate Amazon, but its the future.
I had always assumed that the 'progression' of home furnishing and interior design went:
Cheap stuff (the old MFI) -> IKEA -> John Lewis -> High end retailer (which I don't know) -> bespoke tailor made furniture.
I would imagine the level of the population that goes which would be
20%/40%/25%/12%/3%
ie 60% of the population buys stuff in IKEA or cheaper.
The majority of the population probably mixes and matches.
A key of interior design is that a few designer pieces lift the rest.
I suspect peer group pressure does a lot here. I've no doubt that many interior designers would find my house hideously bourgeois, but I don't have any of them in my social or professional circles and don't care anyway.
I like high-quality bed linen (White Company), high-quality sofas and chairs (Sofalogy), and curtains that have a forest/wood motif (there are woods at the end of my garden), as well as decent bathrooms & kitchens.
My home is built and designed for easy functionality and comfort, not to impress fashion snobs.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
JL are struggling because the quality of the product and the shopping experience is not representative of the price. It’s a shame because I used to love it but I went recently and it felt a bit like walking round a sad TK Maxx. Hardly any stock, badly laid out, few assistants on hand, rip off prices for mdf. It’s a better experience online but the sheen has definitely rubbed off the brand.
I like John Lewis. I still have the sofa in London I bought 28 years ago from them. I still buy lots from them but they are not as good as they once were and some of their stuff is expensive for what it is. I think they expanded too much and now they have people in charge who have no retail experience which is a worry. Plus they have cut back on staff which is silly because customer service was something you could really rely on with them. I hope they survive though. I enjoy shopping there and, on the whole, shopping bores me.
Lots of houses like that in the north of cumbria also.
Can i just point out, the pandemic was not "raging" last february. I was on a foreign holiday last february during half term. It was very much a curious thing happening in China, which seemed a bit worrying but thousands of miles away, having had the bird flu and swine flus that barked but didnt bite.
By the end of February we were still at the "trump is racist for banning those nice Chinese from coming to the usa" stage of the spread.
Do you think this lead will hold up when the Scots digest the full extent of Boris Johnson's sleaziness?
The future of the Union does not depend on what Boris Johnson does to furnish No 10, plus the main swing in Scotland in the new poll is SNP to Labour anyway. If they want to oppose Johnson Scots are moving to Sarwar it seems not Sturgeon.
Of course if you live in England and hate the Tories you need Scotland to stay, on current polling the Tories will certainly win a comfortable majority in England again in 2024, only with the support of Scottish MPs does Starmer have a chance to become PM
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
Regarding the latest Scottish poll I wonder if the bump for SLab will simply lead to a small seat exchange between them and the SCons - while leaving the SNP sitting pretty. I think this is a real danger.
If that means Angus Robertson fails to win Edinburgh Central on the constituency vote as Labour gain it from the SCons not the SNP that is still bad news for Sturgeon.
I think the Conservatives have a good chance of taking Moray from the SNP on today's poll and the LDs of taking Caithness, Sutherland and Ross from the SNP with Unionist tactical votes.
On the list the SNP will lose seats to the Greens and the Tories will lose seats to Labour
Hope so - any news on Hartlepool - I've assumed a Labour hold from the start and presume that is more likely now. I expect Street and Houchem to hold their Mayoralties but wonder about the West of England one.
It is all about the Tories squeezing the BXP vote in Hartlepool
Thats half of the equation. The other half is what happens to the Labour vote. At council level Labour have splintered twice, and the Northern Independence not-Party have Thelma Walker advertising herself as the only true socialist.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
But presumably this is dependent on the government not changing their minds between now and then? They sound to me like they've been setting out the mood music to do so.
I had always assumed that the 'progression' of home furnishing and interior design went:
Cheap stuff (the old MFI) -> IKEA -> John Lewis -> High end retailer (which I don't know) -> bespoke tailor made furniture.
I would imagine the level of the population that goes which would be
20%/40%/25%/12%/3%
ie 60% of the population buys stuff in IKEA or cheaper.
The majority of the population probably mixes and matches.
A key of interior design is that a few designer pieces lift the rest.
I suspect peer group pressure does a lot here. I've no doubt that many interior designers would find my house hideously bourgeois, but I don't have any of them in my social or professional circles and don't care anyway.
I like high-quality bed linen (White Company), high-quality sofas and chairs (Sofalogy), and curtains that have a forest/wood motif (there are woods at the end of my garden), as well as decent bathrooms & kitchens.
My home is built and designed for easy functionality and comfort, not to impress fashion snobs.
I have a couple of high end furniture factories close by, so I know how much of the price is hot air and retail margin.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
John Lewis is facing the same problems many retailers are - its neither cheap and cheerful nor high quality and unique.
Its likely to face the long decline Debenhams and House of Frasers did.
They had an opportunity to be the last man standing on the High St, but since Andy Street left (whatever happened to him?) they’ve followed the rest of the retail herd in cutting costs and service to the bone yet still failing to be competitive with the online option.
Do we have a feel yet for when we start pivoting back to first jabs?
It gradually shifts back to first jabs from this week but the biggest pivot is after 16th June.
This is my brief take:
Currently it is 14m fully vaccinated, which means they are doing people who had dose 1 around 20-22 Feb on the corresponding 1st doses. It was 12m by 15 Feb, wasn't it?
I'd expect a serious pivot back to start between start of May and perhaps May 10, and it to be at 50:50 1st/2nd for a bit. Based on reopened bookings for the next groups.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
But presumably this is dependent on the government not changing their minds between now and then? They sound to me like they've been setting out the mood music to do so.
Actually, on balance, I don't think I agree.
My sense is their position is one of "hold the line". Although @another_richard is quite right to point out that that's innumerate and indeed is based on dates not data.
I marginally think that 21 June sticks. But I'm not sure – you could be right but obviously I hope you are wrong.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
Do we have a feel yet for when we start pivoting back to first jabs?
It gradually shifts back to first jabs from this week but the biggest pivot is after 16th June.
This is my brief take:
Currently it is 14m fully vaccinated, which means they are doing people who had dose 1 around 20-22 Feb on the corresponding 1st doses. It was 12m by 15 Feb, wasn't it?
I'd expect a serious pivot back to start between start of May and perhaps May 10, and it to be at 50:50 1st/2nd for a bit. Based on reopened bookings for the next groups.
I was iirc Feb 7 / Apr 21.
I think Pulpstar is correct. The big shift away from first doses was at the end of March. The big shift back again will be about 11 weeks later.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
But presumably this is dependent on the government not changing their minds between now and then? They sound to me like they've been setting out the mood music to do so.
Actually, on balance, I don't think I agree.
My sense is their position is one of "hold the line". Although @another_richard is quite right to point out that that's innumerate and indeed is based on dates not data.
I marginally think that 21 June sticks. But I'm not sure – you could be right but obviously I hope you are wrong.
I don't think it's marginal @Anabobazina - it's a 90% + type probability. Big shock to me if there's slippage.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
The latest Scottish poll, if held under NZ’s PR system would deliver:
SNP 50 Con 31 Lab 27 Grn 14 LDm 7
SNP/Grn 1 seat shy of a majority.
Possible govt combinations:
SNP/Lab SNP/Grn/LDm
LDs refused to consider working with the SNP in 2007 unless Salmond dumped asking for a referendum, I suspect their position would be even firmer on that now. I guess at least SLab have members, voters and even elected pols ok with the idea of another referendum, but I'm not sure if Anas is in a listening mood for that sort of thing.
NZ’s PR system might concentrate minds on finding ways to work together, but 2014 has probably fcuked that.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
But presumably this is dependent on the government not changing their minds between now and then? They sound to me like they've been setting out the mood music to do so.
Actually, on balance, I don't think I agree.
My sense is their position is one of "hold the line". Although @another_richard is quite right to point out that that's innumerate and indeed is based on dates not data.
I marginally think that 21 June sticks. But I'm not sure – you could be right but obviously I hope you are wrong.
I don't think it's marginal @Anabobazina - it's a 90% + type probability. Big shock to me if there's slippage.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
But presumably this is dependent on the government not changing their minds between now and then? They sound to me like they've been setting out the mood music to do so.
Actually, on balance, I don't think I agree.
My sense is their position is one of "hold the line". Although @another_richard is quite right to point out that that's innumerate and indeed is based on dates not data.
I marginally think that 21 June sticks. But I'm not sure – you could be right but obviously I hope you are wrong.
I don't think it's marginal @Anabobazina - it's a 90% + type probability. Big shock to me if there's slippage.
Big shock to me too, unless there's a variant with sufficient immune escape. But mercifully there's little sign of that so far.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
The latest Scottish poll, if held under NZ’s PR system would deliver:
SNP 50 Con 31 Lab 27 Grn 14 LDm 7
SNP/Grn 1 seat shy of a majority.
Possible govt combinations:
SNP/Lab SNP/Grn/LDm
LDs refused to consider working with the SNP in 2007 unless Salmond dumped asking for a referendum, I suspect their position would be even firmer on that now. I guess at least SLab have members and voters happy with the idea of another referendum, but I'm not sure if Anas is in a listening mood for that sort of thing.
NZ’s PR system might concentrate minds on finding ways to work together, but 2014 has probably fcuked that.
Would SNP have any choice to trade away the referendum?
I post these “NZ” results occasionally, although they’re a bit of fun, just to point out that the PR system used in the devolved nations is a pile of crap.
(And also to note that we seem - despite no written constitution - to approach governance issues with more diligence and sobriety than the U.K. has managed).
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
Indeed "no earlier than" blah blah blah... yet businesses and the public at large have those dates burned into their brains. So those are the dates.
You claimed the wearing of masks "cannot be mandated beyond 21 June". Obviously that's nonsense.
Certainly people may expect it to happen then. But even if it happened the government would still have the power to mandate whatever it liked.
The government can do what the eff it likes anyway. I mean this is the government that has banned people from meeting their own parents for months, closed all pubs and presided over a rolling obituary being simultaneously broadcast on all 156 state TV channels and radio stations.
I am referring to the words of our lauded PM, talking about "all legal restrictions". You chose to take my words absolutely literally. Fair enough. You are technically correct.
In the same way that you would be technically correct if you had challenged my contention that "the wearing of silly hats and polka dot novelty noses cannot be mandated beyond 21 June".
This is fun from Comical Dave (who is an EUphile Yank):
Reminder: 🇪🇺 legislative process is similar to how it works in 🇺🇸.
The lower house (House/Parliament) and the upper house (Senate/Council) adopt separate versions of legislation which must then be reconciled in negotiations before both approve a combined version that becomes law https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1387686439094296577
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
I had always assumed that the 'progression' of home furnishing and interior design went:
Cheap stuff (the old MFI) -> IKEA -> John Lewis -> High end retailer (which I don't know) -> bespoke tailor made furniture.
I would imagine the level of the population that goes which would be
20%/40%/25%/12%/3%
ie 60% of the population buys stuff in IKEA or cheaper.
I am in the process of finishing the works on my new home.
We got a local carpenter - a young furniture designer from Keswick - to build us some stuff. Way cheaper than the big guys and much much better quality than what you can buy ready made: solid wood rather than MDF for instance. The idea that bespoke is automatically very expensive is a myth. There are lots of good young craftsmen around. I also like the idea of buying something made locally from wood grown locally.
You can also get sofas much cheaper if you go directly to the manufacturers rather than via a shop. Not all do this but if you can the savings are worth it. You're not paying for the expensive showrooms and retail mark up etc. John Lewis does not cover our area so all our curtains and blinds have been made up by a local firm which helped with the sourcing of some lovely fabrics etc.
You can also get some fantastic bargains by looking for good quality antiques which are much cheaper than you might think simply because they are out of fashion. I have a few already from my family and I like mixing old and new which I think is more stylish than having everything in one style.
But like all homes we have a mixture of the new, the old, one or two special pieces and stuff which has a sentimental value. We have a dog and cats and a large garden. They key for me is that it is comfortable and easy to live in and that it reflects us rather than any fashion fad or whatever some design guru says.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
But presumably this is dependent on the government not changing their minds between now and then? They sound to me like they've been setting out the mood music to do so.
Actually, on balance, I don't think I agree.
My sense is their position is one of "hold the line". Although @another_richard is quite right to point out that that's innumerate and indeed is based on dates not data.
I marginally think that 21 June sticks. But I'm not sure – you could be right but obviously I hope you are wrong.
I don't think it's marginal @Anabobazina - it's a 90% + type probability. Big shock to me if there's slippage.
Fair enough!
I like to try and spread my confidence in this area.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
I'm clinging to the hope that this is all bluster to persuade people to a) get jabbed and b) not go mad before June 21st. But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS lifted on 21 June. You can't stop people wearing masks voluntarily but they cannot be mandated beyond 21 June.
But presumably this is dependent on the government not changing their minds between now and then? They sound to me like they've been setting out the mood music to do so.
Actually, on balance, I don't think I agree.
My sense is their position is one of "hold the line". Although @another_richard is quite right to point out that that's innumerate and indeed is based on dates not data.
I marginally think that 21 June sticks. But I'm not sure – you could be right but obviously I hope you are wrong.
I don't think it's marginal @Anabobazina - it's a 90% + type probability. Big shock to me if there's slippage.
Big shock to me too, unless there's a variant with sufficient immune escape. But mercifully there's little sign of that so far.
Yep. That's what could derail things. Nasty surprise from the virus.
I had always assumed that the 'progression' of home furnishing and interior design went:
Cheap stuff (the old MFI) -> IKEA -> John Lewis -> High end retailer (which I don't know) -> bespoke tailor made furniture.
I would imagine the level of the population that goes which would be
20%/40%/25%/12%/3%
ie 60% of the population buys stuff in IKEA or cheaper.
I am in the process of finishing the works on my new home.
We got a local carpenter - a young furniture designer from Keswick - to build us some stuff. Way cheaper than the big guys and much much better quality than what you can buy ready made: solid wood rather than MDF for instance. The idea that bespoke is automatically very expensive is a myth. There are lots of good young craftsmen around. I also like the idea of buying something made locally from wood grown locally.
You can also get sofas much cheaper if you go directly to the manufacturers rather than via a shop. Not all do this but if you can the savings are worth it. You're not paying for the expensive showrooms and retail mark up etc. John Lewis does not cover our area so all our curtains and blinds have been made up by a local firm which helped with the sourcing of some lovely fabrics etc.
You can also get some fantastic bargains by looking for good quality antiques which are much cheaper than you might think simply because they are out of fashion. I have a few already from my family and I like mixing old and new which I think is more stylish than having everything in one style.
But like all homes we have a mixture of the new, the old, one or two special pieces and stuff which has a sentimental value. We have a dog and cats and a large garden. They key for me is that it is comfortable and easy to live in and that it reflects us rather than any fashion fad or whatever some design guru says.
Sofas I would go with recovered Guy Rogers Manhattan, which gives a real double bed.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
John Lewis is facing the same problems many retailers are - its neither cheap and cheerful nor high quality and unique.
Its likely to face the long decline Debenhams and House of Frasers did.
They had an opportunity to be the last man standing on the High St, but since Andy Street left (whatever happened to him?) they’ve followed the rest of the retail herd in cutting costs and service to the bone yet still failing to be competitive with the online option.
Their big mistake is cutting back on customer service. That is what gave them the edge. IMO. Plus the people running the place now have no retail experience. That bodes ill in my view. If you are going to compete with online you have to provide something which online cannot give you.
You can also get some fantastic bargains by looking for good quality antiques which are much cheaper than you might think simply because they are out of fashion. I have a few already from my family and I like mixing old and new which I think is more stylish than having everything in one style.
This, absolutely. We picked up a gorgeous bookcase for a song (well under £100) on ebay of all places. Sellers had been given it by the family of their neighbour when she passed away. It had been made by her dad (a joiner) when she was a child. Lovely piece. They were emigrating and getting rid of all their furniture.
Antiques shops and even the community furniture sellers have some nice things. Ebay and the like too, although also a lot of junk. Lots of people just get houses cleared/donate it to charity and don't stop to think about the qualty of some of it (I shudder when I think that happened to my own gran's furniture, some of which I'd love to have now, when I was a child). Just check for woodworm!
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
John Lewis is facing the same problems many retailers are - its neither cheap and cheerful nor high quality and unique.
Its likely to face the long decline Debenhams and House of Frasers did.
They had an opportunity to be the last man standing on the High St, but since Andy Street left (whatever happened to him?) they’ve followed the rest of the retail herd in cutting costs and service to the bone yet still failing to be competitive with the online option.
Their big mistake is cutting back on customer service. That is what gave them the edge. IMO. Plus the people running the place now have no retail experience. That bodes ill in my view. If you are going to compete with online you have to provide something which online cannot give you.
It's also Amazon's biggest secret - you buy from Amazon because you can be sure it arrives and if anything at all is wrong you can return it without hassle.
Comments
De Gaulle wasn't a fan of the trial viewing it as a partisan trial designed to settle scores. The jury voted to execute Pétain but the judge asked the execution not to be carried out because of his age and contributions during World War I.
It was curious all round.
Or are you still running scared, terrified that really you'd lose?
He bought 28 months of collaborative partial home-rule in just a portion of France, and it simply wasn't worth it - not least because they ended up with blood on their hands.
This comment could be construed as libellous and Dyson is a very wealthy man.
Teaching gives one a great insight into human depravity, and the coverup is always worse than the initial offence. I can only conclude that Boris doesn't want to admit to himself that a) he likes ridiculously expensive stuff that he can't currently afford and b) he's prone to temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way. Neither of those matches his self-image.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1387554718621315083?s=20
Please, please, PB - delete my comment and save me from the vengeance of this wealthy man! (Not really.)
Meanwhile some will continue to wibble, wibble about goodwill.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56923515
No wonder labour wants to talk about wallpaper. Seven councillors suspended. Count them. You don't get sued, though do you , you gutless coward?
"Cyclefree"> No it isn't. Which is why the "John Lewis nightmare" comment, if true is a bit snobbish. JL are good enough for very many people in the country and seen as aspirational for many others. And, frankly, when you are only in the place for a short while, have a dog and a baby on the way, spending money on expensive furnishings is bloody daft.
£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly.
The only issue here is if there has been a breach of the rules on donations and/or some quid pro quo. If I had to guess I would plump for the former rather than the latter. The reason it is a story at all is because the PM has been too high handed to provide an explanation when first asked so it looks as if he's got something to hide when the truth may be less sensational than it seems.
I saw this in 'Wallpaper' yesterday. Not yours is it?
https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/little-house-in-the-quarry-norman-prahm-architecture-uk
Full trade deal ratification by the EU was the ordinary course of events.
Failure to ratify by the EU would have effectively torn everything up - it would be a nuclear option.
If that happened I would expect the U.K. to respond in kind.
You can’t achieve protection against a potential nuclear option via a diplomatic snub. It speaks to the UK’s lack of post-deal leverage, also an inclination to spiteful short-termism.
I think the Conservatives have a good chance of taking Moray from the SNP on today's poll and the LDs of taking Caithness, Sutherland and Ross from the SNP with Unionist tactical votes.
On the list the SNP will lose seats to the Greens and the Tories will lose seats to Labour
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/uploads/2021/04/EEAS-Special-Report-Covid-19-vaccine-related-disinformation-6.pdf
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1356989
Flat is part of no 11 I think.
Have it now even if No narrowly wins the Nationalists will demand another within a year as the UK government allowed one before a genuine generation had elapsed
So they were trying to weaponse something that should have been a formality. So we responded in kind on something that equally should be a formality but would piss them off.
Now they have stopped messing around. So we have too. The whole thing is rather childish, but equally childish is the fact they started it.
When people are trying to weaponise formalities then responding in kind is a diplomatic way to resolve it.
The idea that Boris and Carrie are in a position to lecture anyone else about taste is rather risible really. She looks like a an average Sloane with nothing remotely elegant or special about the way she dresses and Boris .... well he's just a scruff.
It manifests a certain British banality, which is intended to be inoffensive I suppose.
I have some curtains from John Lewis, but only because they were a reasonably affordable option.
(For some reason the cost of curtains annoys me).
They are good for towels and pillows and haberdashery. You can sometimes get a good deal on a rug.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if you look at that Lulu Lytle video someone posted upthread, your eyes will start watering.
In fact I feel quite ill. But actually I feel a bit better now and I think I may call a lawyer, to discuss whether the trauma you've just put me through may be actionable.
But it's a hope, not an expectation; my expectation is that masks and social distancing are here to stay indefinitely.
You saw it with the prominent Remainers as well in the Brexit debate - Soubry, Grieve, Clarke, Gauke *. They thought they were oh so clever with their court cases, use of procedures, using the Lords etc etc, the sorts of tactics that might win you a court case and show how clever you are but to the general public, looked like a bunch of t0ssers trying to use every method, fair and foul, to overturn the result.
https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/little-house-in-the-quarry-norman-prahm-architecture-uk
https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/little-house-in-the-quarry-norman-prahm-architecture-uk
No. Our house was designed by an award-winning architect, now sadly deceased.
Cheap stuff (the old MFI) -> IKEA -> John Lewis -> High end retailer (which I don't know) -> bespoke tailor made furniture.
I would imagine the level of the population that goes which would be
20%/40%/25%/12%/3%
ie 60% of the population buys stuff in IKEA or cheaper.
Diplomatic snubs can and do matter with the EU because it takes itself as a power-bloc so seriously.
That said, I bought curtains from them 3 years ago that are fantastic and of great quality.
They overexpanded too quickly and broadened their brand too much, IMHO. Some CEOs get so fixated on growth they lose sight of their core business.
A key of interior design is that a few designer pieces lift the rest.
25 / 40 / 25 / 9 / 1
I like high-quality bed linen (White Company), high-quality sofas and chairs (Sofalogy), and curtains that have a forest/wood motif (there are woods at the end of my garden), as well as decent bathrooms & kitchens.
My home is built and designed for easy functionality and comfort, not to impress fashion snobs.
The more benign explanation for this innumerate nonsense is that it's a last line of defence against growing pressures to accelerate reopening. That if they keep banging this drum they'll be able to stick to 17 May and 21 June rather than open up earlier..?
Haven't been there much in years now though and not just because of the pandemic, if I want a go-to place for a bit of everything now that's Amazon. Can browse from my sofa while watching TV, find something and its in my house the next day.
Retail like that is dying. I know some here hate Amazon, but its the future.
By the end of February we were still at the "trump is racist for banning those nice Chinese from coming to the usa" stage of the spread.
Of course if you live in England and hate the Tories you need Scotland to stay, on current polling the Tories will certainly win a comfortable majority in England again in 2024, only with the support of Scottish MPs does Starmer have a chance to become PM
SNP 50
Con 31
Lab 27
Grn 14
LDm 7
SNP/Grn 1 seat shy of a majority.
Possible govt combinations:
SNP/Lab
SNP/Grn/LDm
45 / 35 / 10 / 9 / 1
Edit: and that 10% should be John Lewis or equivalent. I can't imagine John Lewis's share of the interiors market is anything like 10% all by itself.
Currently it is 14m fully vaccinated, which means they are doing people who had dose 1 around 20-22 Feb on the corresponding 1st doses. It was 12m by 15 Feb, wasn't it?
I'd expect a serious pivot back to start between start of May and perhaps May 10, and it to be at 50:50 1st/2nd for a bit. Based on reopened bookings for the next groups.
I was iirc Feb 7 / Apr 21.
Step 4 - not before 21 June
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-response-spring-2021/covid-19-response-spring-2021-summary
My sense is their position is one of "hold the line". Although @another_richard is quite right to point out that that's innumerate and indeed is based on dates not data.
I marginally think that 21 June sticks. But I'm not sure – you could be right but obviously I hope you are wrong.
Judging by the (local) pile owned by Lord Kirkham, I suspect a lot more people have been buying DFS tat than John Lewis. A lot more.
Certainly people may expect it to happen then. But even if it happened the government would still have the power to mandate whatever it liked.
NZ’s PR system might concentrate minds on finding ways to work together, but 2014 has probably fcuked that.
I post these “NZ” results occasionally, although they’re a bit of fun, just to point out that the PR system used in the devolved nations is a pile of crap.
(And also to note that we seem - despite no written constitution - to approach governance issues with more diligence and sobriety than the U.K. has managed).
I am referring to the words of our lauded PM, talking about "all legal restrictions". You chose to take my words absolutely literally. Fair enough. You are technically correct.
In the same way that you would be technically correct if you had challenged my contention that "the wearing of silly hats and polka dot novelty noses cannot be mandated beyond 21 June".
Reminder: 🇪🇺 legislative process is similar to how it works in 🇺🇸.
The lower house (House/Parliament) and the upper house (Senate/Council) adopt separate versions of legislation which must then be reconciled in negotiations before both approve a combined version that becomes law
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1387686439094296577
We got a local carpenter - a young furniture designer from Keswick - to build us some stuff. Way cheaper than the big guys and much much better quality than what you can buy ready made: solid wood rather than MDF for instance. The idea that bespoke is automatically very expensive is a myth. There are lots of good young craftsmen around. I also like the idea of buying something made locally from wood grown locally.
You can also get sofas much cheaper if you go directly to the manufacturers rather than via a shop. Not all do this but if you can the savings are worth it. You're not paying for the expensive showrooms and retail mark up etc. John Lewis does not cover our area so all our curtains and blinds have been made up by a local firm which helped with the sourcing of some lovely fabrics etc.
You can also get some fantastic bargains by looking for good quality antiques which are much cheaper than you might think simply because they are out of fashion. I have a few already from my family and I like mixing old and new which I think is more stylish than having everything in one style.
But like all homes we have a mixture of the new, the old, one or two special pieces and stuff which has a sentimental value. We have a dog and cats and a large garden. They key for me is that it is comfortable and easy to live in and that it reflects us rather than any fashion fad or whatever some design guru says.
It doesn't listen to any of our debates.
Made of teak.
Antiques shops and even the community furniture sellers have some nice things. Ebay and the like too, although also a lot of junk. Lots of people just get houses cleared/donate it to charity and don't stop to think about the qualty of some of it (I shudder when I think that happened to my own gran's furniture, some of which I'd love to have now, when I was a child). Just check for woodworm!