Helen Ward @profhelenward · 1h "The UN under secretary-general, Vera Songwe, said Hancock’s “success” in handling the UK’s pandemic response was a testament to the strengths he would bring to the role."
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
I take it 'Trusted Trader' is suddenly the new big thing. Forgive me if I missed it, but have you ever actually mentioned it before this evening?
Here's one example in January to william when I thought things were going well as the trusted trader scheme was going to happen. Before william saw the light. 😉
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
I would argue that the social benefits of Covid, such as the WFH revolution and people having an opportunity to reprioritise in their lives, more than outweighs the social harms.
Yet there are those for whom the periods of enforced isolation have been purgatory whether because they are alone or with someone with whom they no longer want to live or for a myriad other reasons.
Many have, as you say, coped not only well but prospered. Getting off the commuting treadmill has been a positive personal benefit but I'd never want to generalise it.
It's clear some on here have found it hard going at times and if this forum has provided some much needed contact I'm delighted we've all managed to help each other through this.
Lockdown was horrific. Depressing. Unbearable. I’m still astounded whenever I hear anyone suggest that they enjoyed it. A closed world is grim.
I'm with you. Lockdown 3 took me close to a total breakdown, and it has left permanent mental scars on me. I can never do it again. I would rather take my chances with a plague + vaccine
I have plenty of friends who weathered most of it just fine (generally richer, older people in big houses, often outside London) tho by the end, even the most relaxed were beginning to fray, in quirky ways
I have other friends who were exactly like us. They hated most of it, and they suffered accordingly. I know of at least 2 divorces
Lockdowns were pretty bad. At least I could still go to work (in manufacturing, so continued to go in throughout the entire horror,) and I have a husband to come home to afterwards. I shudder to think what it was like for single people working from home in officey jobs - for most of them the prolonged isolation must've been dreadful.
I do think predictions are right that there will be a lot more home working than their used to be, it's just be shown to be doable and it is convenient in a lot of ways, but I do hope there is a bit less of it than people currently think. I've had a few people tell me recently that on going to the office for the first time in ages they did find it almost relaxing. They still are happy to home work much of the time, but hopefully people will remember that office working is not all horrible commuting and drudgery. Personally I think the value of separating your work space from your home space on wellbeing is underestimated.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
I see the Remoaners are getting awfully upset over on Twitter and in the media that Lord Frost might have another negotiating success over the NI protocol.
I know that's meant to provoke, but there is an interesting bit of psychology in all this. I do think there really is a difference in the population - perhaps this is the lover vs fighter point raised earlier - between those who enjoy a good old fight and those who couldn't think of anything worse.
For those of us of a more, shall we say, conflict avoiding disposition seeing Frost do what Frost does is embarrassing. So much so that in my case I find myself wincing and watching the thing through my hands. It's embarrassing in exactly the same way as when you're with one of those people who decide very loudly to complain in a restaurant. You plead with them not to make a fuss. You try to explain things from the establishment's point of view. But they won't be dissuaded. Off they go on their rant, demanding to speak to the chef, and the rest of the table just wants the ground to open up and swallow them.
Now the trouble is you never know what will happen. Possibly half the time or more the blighter complaining will get a little victory, like drinks on the house or a partial refund, because the staff just want a way to make them go quietly. That just makes them all the more likely to act up at the next establishment. Occasionally they get kicked out of the restaurant and told never to come back. In that case the rest of the table feel it more keenly than the complainant, who just launches into a torrent of swearwords and bangs on about how unfair it is.
So I'm afraid - and I don't think this is just a remainer thing, it's a cultural thing - there will always be a substantial chunk of the public who will wince when their politicians ask to speak to the manager.
Good analogy. People who complain in restaurants are the absolute dregs of humanity.
Don't some of the "absolute dregs of humanity" have good reason to complain immediately and do it in a reasonable way?
Surely a restaurant would prefer that to a customer meekly lying that everything was good, and then posting their real review online later.
I worked in a restaurant for 5 years. My experience was that complaints were a function of the personality of the customer and were more or less orthogonal to their culinary experience. Some complained about *everything*, others would apologise to you as they pointed out that there was broken glass in their water. You could usually predict who was going to be a prick before they even sat down. Restaurants know when they've given you shit service, you won't be helping them by pointing it out, and it's rarely the fault of the person you will get to complain to. If you've got nothing nice to say, say nothing.
My wife once found broken glass in a chocolate mousse at a restaurant. We pointed it out, they apologised, brought a replacement and didn't charge for either.
I think it was a terrible mistake for them to have made. It would have been very easy for my wife to have swallowed the glass and caused herself a serious injury. But, once the mistake had been discovered there wasn't much use making too much of a fuss about it. The worst thing about it in the end was the hassle of having to point it out, and the nagging doubt that we'd never feel comfortable returning, even though the food was otherwise very good.
You do get the impression that some people are delighted when they have something to complain about, and want to establish some moral superiority out of the situation.
I think the no complainers are absolutely wrong. I provide the most feedback to the restaurants I like the most. I tell them when I think they've got it right and when I think they've got it wrong on everything from recipe, to cooking, to service. I give more leeway to new hires, but will let management know if I think a novice needs a little more coaching. Coming from the world of safety, feedback we receive is a gift for which we should be thankful, and giving feedback is a duty.
The key in giving feedback is to give it from a place of caring, and to make it clear that it is for the purposes of improvement, not blame.
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
His failure on the Night Tube is a disgrace. There seems to be no urgency to revive it. It is scandalous, and the London media need to do more to hold him to account on it.
Since when did the UN start trolling us? Helen Ward @profhelenward · 1h "The UN under secretary-general, Vera Songwe, said Hancock’s “success” in handling the UK’s pandemic response was a testament to the strengths he would bring to the role."
Start? Isn't sending UN apparatchiks to do reports on nations like the UK and saying they are worst in the world about something a grand tradition?
I would argue that the social benefits of Covid, such as the WFH revolution and people having an opportunity to reprioritise in their lives, more than outweighs the social harms.
Yet there are those for whom the periods of enforced isolation have been purgatory whether because they are alone or with someone with whom they no longer want to live or for a myriad other reasons.
Many have, as you say, coped not only well but prospered. Getting off the commuting treadmill has been a positive personal benefit but I'd never want to generalise it.
It's clear some on here have found it hard going at times and if this forum has provided some much needed contact I'm delighted we've all managed to help each other through this.
Lockdown was horrific. Depressing. Unbearable. I’m still astounded whenever I hear anyone suggest that they enjoyed it. A closed world is grim.
I'm with you. Lockdown 3 took me close to a total breakdown, and it has left permanent mental scars on me. I can never do it again. I would rather take my chances with a plague + vaccine
I have plenty of friends who weathered most of it just fine (generally richer, older people in big houses, often outside London) tho by the end, even the most relaxed were beginning to fray, in quirky ways
I have other friends who were exactly like us. They hated most of it, and they suffered accordingly. I know of at least 2 divorces
Lockdowns were pretty bad. At least I could still go to work (in manufacturing, so continued to go in throughout the entire horror,) and I have a husband to come home to afterwards. I shudder to think what it was like for single people working from home in officey jobs - for most of them the prolonged isolation must've been dreadful.
A mate of mine falls into that category. He’s quite an introverted guy but absolutely hated lockdown WFH, it took him to the brink of depression. Extremely lonely.
My wife's best friend moved into our spare bedroom in lockdown 3 because she's single, lives alone and her office was shut. She just needed some actual human contact with real people. It was nice to have her stay as well after essentially a year of it being just me and my wife alone together every evening. I love her but it's not easy to only spend time with the same person all day and then all evening and night for months on end.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
I have been wondering for years why he is talked about now and again in Labour circles as a future leader (there was a lot of such talk near end of Miliband's term for example).
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
Does running NY fireworks cost money? Maybe it is a cost saver?
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
Quite. These people who say "oh lockdown was fine" then you realise they weren't actually locked down at all, during working hours
I work at home, alone, and I live alone. I'm pretty fucking resilient but add that situation to a destroyed social world with no travel, no pubs, no restaurants, no lovers, no crowds, no embracing, no touching, no Christmas, no nothing, and suddenly you have - for me - an extreme dystopia, and all of this happening during one of the bleakest winters for a long while
For many many weeks my entire social life, all of it, consisted of one single walk in a freezing, sleeting London park with a friend, for an hour, once a week, with a thermos of mulled wine, and then back home again to the silence and the loneliness.
Inexpressibly bleak and it drove me close to self destruction
And yet my situation was better than many people: trapped in small flats with a dysfunctional marriage or a deeply unhappy family. That was surely worse. And as for domestic violence...
Aaron Bell on Newsnight! Tory MP who used to be 'Tissue Price'. Doing his best but Rory Stewart is roasting his government-and the chief scientific officer-for bring arrogant and inept.
At last, an explicit admission that the Johnson government negotiated the WA in bad faith, never had any intention of keeping its word, and lied to the British public in the 2019 election. Quite a moment. https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1448018739623038982
You are reading what Big Dom actually says, right?
"For all the cant about international law, a/ states break it every week, b/ the idea it's the epitome of morality is low grade student politics pushed by lawyers/officials to constrain politics they oppose. Govt shd focus on solving problems & chill viz "i/n law" viz NI #IMBill2"
"Shd we generally stick to deals? Of course. Sometimes break them? Of course. Just like the EU, US, China and every other state does. International diplomacy cannot be judged by the standards of a student duel, and lawyers are hired help not the masters"
I actually kind of agree with him. Not in the sense of simply 'chilling' about it, but the way it is often referred to as immutable and universally agreed set of principles and very specific actions is frequently nonsense. Some of the worst regimes on earth would claim to totally be respecting international law in their actions regarding other nations.
In all honesty the idea you don't break treaties the instant it is convenient for you is probably pretty recent in some ways, if a cursory look at medieval history is any indication. Not that we should do so flippantly, not at all, but talk around international law is very often posturing.
In medieval history, they went to actual war when one side broke a treaty. Not sure that's a good analogy.
Also I don't think countries do deliberately break treaties very often. They might allow treaties to fall into disuse, disregard their obligations if the other side doesn't care too much, create a breach through a different interpretation of the obligations and so on.
The purpose of almost any treaty is to get the other side to commit to do something, or to not do something, when they may not be willing when it comes to the point. Precisely the situation of the NIP. Treaties are serious commitments and treated as such.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
Quite. These people who say "oh lockdown was fine" then you realise they weren't actually locked down at all, during working hours
I work at home, alone, and I live alone. I'm pretty fucking resilient but add that situation to a destroyed social world with no travel, no pubs, no restaurants, no lovers, no crowds, no embracing, no touching, no Christmas, no nothing, and suddenly you have - for me - an extreme dystopia, and all of this happening during one of the bleakest winters for a long while
For many many weeks my entire social life, all of it, consisted of one single walk in a freezing, sleeting London park with a friend, for an hour, once a week, with a thermos of mulled wine, and then back home again to the silence and the loneliness.
Inexpressibly bleak and it drove me close to self destruction
And yet my situation was better than many people: trapped in small flats with a dysfunctional marriage or a deeply unhappy family. That was surely worse. And as for domestic violence...
It was deeply horrific for all too many
Agree with this, and I'm lucky to have a pretty amazing wife. All of the above is why we had her best friend stay with us from January to March, we were both worried she wouldn't make it to the other side without serious self harm or mental health issues.
What constitutes a scene depends on the the person in question, in particular their general level of anxiety and embarrassment. I know I shouldn't consider a valid complaint a scene, but I would. And it's people who unjustifiably cause a scene don't think they are causing one.
I think that's right, and not only do I not complain, I roll my eyes when friends complain. "Get a life!"
The stuff about getting rolled over only matters if you care. Sure, if someone tries to burn down my home, I'll react vigorously. But if a meal isn't quite what I wanted? A bus is 10 minutes late? There was only one towel in the bathroom? If you grumble about everything, you don't improve service, you just make yourself grumpy.
It depends what it is. Our bus was 11 minutes late in Saturday. I can track the bus from the company website so knew one was coming. It was no big deal. One towel in the bathroom, I’d politely request one when I passed reception. With food I tend to complain only if something is cold when it shouldn’t be. If I ordered it but didn’t like it that’s my issue. If a meal isn’t great we just won’t go back rather than make a fuss as we ha e done with a couple of eateries by us,
Yes, it's very individual and situational what bothers us. But it's interesting about buses. A group manager told me that once they'd installed the electronic boards showing how long the next one would be, they could throw away the timetable - people didn't believe a bus would come at 02, 22 and 42, and positively preferred to just stroll down and check the board, then decide whether to wait or not.
Bit of a problem when the nearest bus stop is a mile and a half though.
At last, an explicit admission that the Johnson government negotiated the WA in bad faith, never had any intention of keeping its word, and lied to the British public in the 2019 election. Quite a moment. https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1448018739623038982
You are reading what Big Dom actually says, right?
"For all the cant about international law, a/ states break it every week, b/ the idea it's the epitome of morality is low grade student politics pushed by lawyers/officials to constrain politics they oppose. Govt shd focus on solving problems & chill viz "i/n law" viz NI #IMBill2"
"Shd we generally stick to deals? Of course. Sometimes break them? Of course. Just like the EU, US, China and every other state does. International diplomacy cannot be judged by the standards of a student duel, and lawyers are hired help not the masters"
I actually kind of agree with him. Not in the sense of simply 'chilling' about it, but the way it is often referred to as immutable and universally agreed set of principles and very specific actions is frequently nonsense. Some of the worst regimes on earth would claim to totally be respecting international law in their actions regarding other nations.
In all honesty the idea you don't break treaties the instant it is convenient for you is probably pretty recent in some ways, if a cursory look at medieval history is any indication. Not that we should do so flippantly, not at all, but talk around international law is very often posturing.
In medieval history, they went to actual war when one side broke a treaty. Not sure that's a good analogy.
Also I don't think countries do deliberately break treaties very often. They might allow treaties to fall into disuse, if the other side doesn't care too much, through a different interpretation of the obligations and so on.
The purpose of almost any treaty is to get the other side to commit to do something, or to not do something, when they may not be willing when it comes to the point. Precisely the situation of the NIP. These are serious commitments and treated as such.
I was being jokey, but I certainly didn't say nations break treaties often now.
But the medieval analogy I stand by, not on the basis that it led to war, but that it showed that the rule seemed to be that if you felt strong enough you'd break it, since everyone was up to it. Thing are much better now, thankfully.
I work at home, alone, and I live alone. I'm pretty fucking resilient but add that situation to a destroyed social world with no travel, no pubs, no restaurants, no lovers, no crowds, no embracing, no touching, no Christmas, no nothing, and suddenly you have - for me - an extreme dystopia, and all of this happening during one of the bleakest winters for a long while
"What 85's SeanT's trying to tell you is that we ain't got no entertainment centre, no climate control, no video system, no surveillance, no freezers, no fucking ice cream, no rubbers, no women, no guns. All we got here is *shit*!"
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
I have been wondering for years why he is talked about now and again in Labour circles as a future leader (there was a lot of such talk near end of Miliband's term for example).
Utterly beyond me.
Yes, he’s rubbish. His one key achievement was actually delivering the Night Tube after Boris had faffed about for ages and blundered through the union negotiations with characteristic incompetence.
Now he is cocking up his solitary success by mothballing the Night Tube when the rest of London is buzzing.
i) if Boris had done this most of the country would be laughing along with him. It's bloody annoying if you want a non-Tory government, but there we are.
ii) The backward reverse towards a tight parking space is so ripe for an AI solution that it is irrelevant.
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
It's simply the nature of the political map. London is predominantly red rosette on a donkey territory.
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
I have been wondering for years why he is talked about now and again in Labour circles as a future leader (there was a lot of such talk near end of Miliband's term for example).
Utterly beyond me.
Yes, he’s rubbish. His one key achievement was actually delivering the Night Tube after Boris had faffed about for ages and blundered through the union negotiations with characteristic incompetence.
Now he is cocking up his solitary success by mothballing the Night Tube when the rest of London is buzzing.
It’s quite weird, and pathetic.
Oh well, at least we know that there is no way Burnham will let Khan run for the leadership unopposed.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
Quite. These people who say "oh lockdown was fine" then you realise they weren't actually locked down at all, during working hours
I work at home, alone, and I live alone. I'm pretty fucking resilient but add that situation to a destroyed social world with no travel, no pubs, no restaurants, no lovers, no crowds, no embracing, no touching, no Christmas, no nothing, and suddenly you have - for me - an extreme dystopia, and all of this happening during one of the bleakest winters for a long while
For many many weeks my entire social life, all of it, consisted of one single walk in a freezing, sleeting London park with a friend, for an hour, once a week, with a thermos of mulled wine, and then back home again to the silence and the loneliness.
Inexpressibly bleak and it drove me close to self destruction
And yet my situation was better than many people: trapped in small flats with a dysfunctional marriage or a deeply unhappy family. That was surely worse. And as for domestic violence...
It was deeply horrific for all too many
Agree with this, and I'm lucky to have a pretty amazing wife. All of the above is why we had her best friend stay with us from January to March, we were both worried she wouldn't make it to the other side without serious self harm or mental health issues.
I've trained myself to cope with solitude. I positively relish it, a lot of the time. Despite being very sociable when I want. I'm a sort of monastic extrovert. When I party I PARTY but I am also used to days on end without a conversation. That's when I do the work, because I must
And yet I struggled so bad with lockdowns 2 and especially 3. God knows how young young people on their own, used to a daily and gregarious social life, managed to stay sane
I fear we will have a cascade of mental health issues over the next few years, descending from those long, hellish months of isolation
It was an unprecedented human experiment and we still don't know the results
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
I have been wondering for years why he is talked about now and again in Labour circles as a future leader (there was a lot of such talk near end of Miliband's term for example).
Utterly beyond me.
Yes, he’s rubbish. His one key achievement was actually delivering the Night Tube after Boris had faffed about for ages and blundered through the union negotiations with characteristic incompetence.
Now he is cocking up his solitary success by mothballing the Night Tube when the rest of London is buzzing.
It’s quite weird, and pathetic.
Oh well, at least we know that there is no way Burnham will let Khan run for the leadership unopposed.
Would be interesting if it became a trend - build your credentials as a mayor, then become party leader. Yes, Boris did it, but one is not a trend, and mayors with actual authority in most parts of the country are still new or invisible.
Ben Houchen for PM 2028?
It's a bit of a gamble, since giving up local prominence to go back into the national arena could blow up in your face if you then don't get any good gigs.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
Quite. These people who say "oh lockdown was fine" then you realise they weren't actually locked down at all, during working hours
I work at home, alone, and I live alone. I'm pretty fucking resilient but add that situation to a destroyed social world with no travel, no pubs, no restaurants, no lovers, no crowds, no embracing, no touching, no Christmas, no nothing, and suddenly you have - for me - an extreme dystopia, and all of this happening during one of the bleakest winters for a long while
For many many weeks my entire social life, all of it, consisted of one single walk in a freezing, sleeting London park with a friend, for an hour, once a week, with a thermos of mulled wine, and then back home again to the silence and the loneliness.
Inexpressibly bleak and it drove me close to self destruction
And yet my situation was better than many people: trapped in small flats with a dysfunctional marriage or a deeply unhappy family. That was surely worse. And as for domestic violence...
It was seriously horrific for all too many
Excellent post. I still worry that many of those who are sanguine about lockdowns are unaware of the severe impact they have on large proportions of the population.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
Quite. These people who say "oh lockdown was fine" then you realise they weren't actually locked down at all, during working hours
I work at home, alone, and I live alone. I'm pretty fucking resilient but add that situation to a destroyed social world with no travel, no pubs, no restaurants, no lovers, no crowds, no embracing, no touching, no Christmas, no nothing, and suddenly you have - for me - an extreme dystopia, and all of this happening during one of the bleakest winters for a long while
For many many weeks my entire social life, all of it, consisted of one single walk in a freezing, sleeting London park with a friend, for an hour, once a week, with a thermos of mulled wine, and then back home again to the silence and the loneliness.
Inexpressibly bleak and it drove me close to self destruction
And yet my situation was better than many people: trapped in small flats with a dysfunctional marriage or a deeply unhappy family. That was surely worse. And as for domestic violence...
It was seriously horrific for all too many
I did not realize how depressed I had become because it crept up on my slowly. Like you, I worked from home and was prevented from traveling. Unlike you, I live on 75 acres in a large house and have a wife to talk to of an evening. But I still got a bad case of cabin fever and cannot wait for my first post-COVID road trip to Baku in a couple of weeks.
At last, an explicit admission that the Johnson government negotiated the WA in bad faith, never had any intention of keeping its word, and lied to the British public in the 2019 election. Quite a moment. https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1448018739623038982
You are reading what Big Dom actually says, right?
"For all the cant about international law, a/ states break it every week, b/ the idea it's the epitome of morality is low grade student politics pushed by lawyers/officials to constrain politics they oppose. Govt shd focus on solving problems & chill viz "i/n law" viz NI #IMBill2"
"Shd we generally stick to deals? Of course. Sometimes break them? Of course. Just like the EU, US, China and every other state does. International diplomacy cannot be judged by the standards of a student duel, and lawyers are hired help not the masters"
I actually kind of agree with him. Not in the sense of simply 'chilling' about it, but the way it is often referred to as immutable and universally agreed set of principles and very specific actions is frequently nonsense. Some of the worst regimes on earth would claim to totally be respecting international law in their actions regarding other nations.
In all honesty the idea you don't break treaties the instant it is convenient for you is probably pretty recent in some ways, if a cursory look at medieval history is any indication. Not that we should do so flippantly, not at all, but talk around international law is very often posturing.
In medieval history, they went to actual war when one side broke a treaty. Not sure that's a good analogy.
Also I don't think countries do deliberately break treaties very often. They might allow treaties to fall into disuse, if the other side doesn't care too much, through a different interpretation of the obligations and so on.
The purpose of almost any treaty is to get the other side to commit to do something, or to not do something, when they may not be willing when it comes to the point. Precisely the situation of the NIP. These are serious commitments and treated as such.
I was being jokey, but I certainly didn't say nations break treaties often now.
But the medieval analogy I stand by, not on the basis that it led to war, but that it showed that the rule seemed to be that if you felt strong enough you'd break it, since everyone was up to it. Thing are much better now, thankfully.
This is true, but only because the threshold for going to war was lower in the Middle Ages, I think.
I would argue that the social benefits of Covid, such as the WFH revolution and people having an opportunity to reprioritise in their lives, more than outweighs the social harms.
Yet there are those for whom the periods of enforced isolation have been purgatory whether because they are alone or with someone with whom they no longer want to live or for a myriad other reasons.
Many have, as you say, coped not only well but prospered. Getting off the commuting treadmill has been a positive personal benefit but I'd never want to generalise it.
It's clear some on here have found it hard going at times and if this forum has provided some much needed contact I'm delighted we've all managed to help each other through this.
Lockdown was horrific. Depressing. Unbearable. I’m still astounded whenever I hear anyone suggest that they enjoyed it. A closed world is grim.
I'm with you. Lockdown 3 took me close to a total breakdown, and it has left permanent mental scars on me. I can never do it again. I would rather take my chances with a plague + vaccine
I have plenty of friends who weathered most of it just fine (generally richer, older people in big houses, often outside London) tho by the end, even the most relaxed were beginning to fray, in quirky ways
I have other friends who were exactly like us. They hated most of it, and they suffered accordingly. I know of at least 2 divorces
Lockdowns were pretty bad. At least I could still go to work (in manufacturing, so continued to go in throughout the entire horror,) and I have a husband to come home to afterwards. I shudder to think what it was like for single people working from home in officey jobs - for most of them the prolonged isolation must've been dreadful.
A mate of mine falls into that category. He’s quite an introverted guy but absolutely hated lockdown WFH, it took him to the brink of depression. Extremely lonely.
My wife's best friend moved into our spare bedroom in lockdown 3 because she's single, lives alone and her office was shut. She just needed some actual human contact with real people. It was nice to have her stay as well after essentially a year of it being just me and my wife alone together every evening. I love her but it's not easy to only spend time with the same person all day and then all evening and night for months on end.
That was a very kind thing you both did, notwithstanding it was pleasant for you both as well. I think most people in that situation would neither request nor receive such an offer.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
No, tho only time when I was truly locked down was when I had to isolate for 10 days when Mrs Foxy caught it. It was a bit annoying not being able to leave house and garden, and I am glad that I didn't have to do it longer.
It was nice to have a good garden to sit in during the fine weather of the first lockdown. The second wasn't too bad either. The third was tougher but that was when I was helping on ICU. I don't want to go there again.
I don't think there will be a fourth, even though the NHS is a rickety house of cards.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
It was a Kinnock falling into the sea, Milliband bacon sandwich moment, which is why Starmer is dumbfounded.
I agree totally and utterly unacceptable behaviour. One has to ask who is advising Starmer, Boris Johnson? A stupid, stupid stunt.
I'm not sure how I would advise Starmer. Stunts usually backfire, but certainly they seem to do Boris little harm and you do need to get attention, and judging which ones might work is hard. And it's easy for me to say he cannot out Boris Boris and shouldn't try, but it has been awhile, under odd circumstances admittedly, and the cool, calm approach doesn't get many pulses racing.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
No, tho only time when I was truly locked down was when I had to isolate for 10 days when Mrs Foxy caught it. It was a bit annoying not being able to leave house and garden, and I am glad that I didn't have to do it longer.
It was nice to have a good garden to sit in during the fine weather of the first lockdown. The second wasn't too bad either. The third was tougher but that was when I was helping on ICU. I don't want to go there again.
I don't think there will be a fourth, even though the NHS is a rickety house of cards.
There wont be a fourth. Not in a meaningful way anyway. That's because peeps like me and all my mates (and millions others I suspect) who obeyed the last three are NOT prepared to do it again now that the vulnerable have been vaxed.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
i) if Boris had done this most of the country would be laughing along with him. It's bloody annoying if you want a non-Tory government, but there we are.
ii) The backward reverse towards a tight parking space is so ripe for an AI solution that it is irrelevant.
Who advised him that this set up was, excuse the pun, anything but an accident waiting to happen?
Starmer isn't getting the rub of the greens. No 2016 Cenotaph footage for Starmer should he ever place his wreath upside down.
I would argue that the social benefits of Covid, such as the WFH revolution and people having an opportunity to reprioritise in their lives, more than outweighs the social harms.
Yet there are those for whom the periods of enforced isolation have been purgatory whether because they are alone or with someone with whom they no longer want to live or for a myriad other reasons.
Many have, as you say, coped not only well but prospered. Getting off the commuting treadmill has been a positive personal benefit but I'd never want to generalise it.
It's clear some on here have found it hard going at times and if this forum has provided some much needed contact I'm delighted we've all managed to help each other through this.
Lockdown was horrific. Depressing. Unbearable. I’m still astounded whenever I hear anyone suggest that they enjoyed it. A closed world is grim.
I'm with you. Lockdown 3 took me close to a total breakdown, and it has left permanent mental scars on me. I can never do it again. I would rather take my chances with a plague + vaccine
I have plenty of friends who weathered most of it just fine (generally richer, older people in big houses, often outside London) tho by the end, even the most relaxed were beginning to fray, in quirky ways
I have other friends who were exactly like us. They hated most of it, and they suffered accordingly. I know of at least 2 divorces
Lockdowns were pretty bad. At least I could still go to work (in manufacturing, so continued to go in throughout the entire horror,) and I have a husband to come home to afterwards. I shudder to think what it was like for single people working from home in officey jobs - for most of them the prolonged isolation must've been dreadful.
A mate of mine falls into that category. He’s quite an introverted guy but absolutely hated lockdown WFH, it took him to the brink of depression. Extremely lonely.
My wife's best friend moved into our spare bedroom in lockdown 3 because she's single, lives alone and her office was shut. She just needed some actual human contact with real people. It was nice to have her stay as well after essentially a year of it being just me and my wife alone together every evening. I love her but it's not easy to only spend time with the same person all day and then all evening and night for months on end.
That was a very kind thing you both did, notwithstanding it was pleasant for you both as well. I think most people in that situation would neither request nor receive such an offer.
It is a credit to Max and his wife
And it is a silver lining to a very dark cloud. I have heard several tales of people getting together - living together, unexpectedly - during Lockdown - just to keep everyone sane. Heart-warming
It was a Kinnock falling into the sea, Milliband bacon sandwich moment, which is why Starmer is dumbfounded.
I agree totally and utterly unacceptable behaviour. One has to ask who is advising Starmer, Boris Johnson? A stupid, stupid stunt.
I'm not sure how I would advise Starmer. Stunts usually backfire, but certainly they seem to do Boris little harm and you do need to get attention, and judging which ones might work is hard. And it's easy for me to say he cannot out Boris Boris and shouldn't try, but it has been awhile, under odd circumstances admittedly, and the cool, calm approach doesn't get many pulses racing.
Maybe it wasn't a stunt. Maybe Starmer's realised there's more money to be made now being an HGV driver than being leader of the opposition.
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
I take it 'Trusted Trader' is suddenly the new big thing. Forgive me if I missed it, but have you ever actually mentioned it before this evening?
Here's one example in January to william when I thought things were going well as the trusted trader scheme was going to happen. Before william saw the light. 😉
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
But enough about Starmer, what do you think of Sadiq Khan?
It was a Kinnock falling into the sea, Milliband bacon sandwich moment, which is why Starmer is dumbfounded.
I agree totally and utterly unacceptable behaviour. One has to ask who is advising Starmer, Boris Johnson? A stupid, stupid stunt.
I'm not sure how I would advise Starmer. Stunts usually backfire, but certainly they seem to do Boris little harm and you do need to get attention, and judging which ones might work is hard. And it's easy for me to say he cannot out Boris Boris and shouldn't try, but it has been awhile, under odd circumstances admittedly, and the cool, calm approach doesn't get many pulses racing.
Every day of the week, Starmer should get out of bed and ask what Tony Blair would do today.
Being in an HGV truck would not be one of the answers.
Ministers at Holyrood have been warned that they risk the effectiveness of a public health campaign if they urge “anyone with a cervix” to take a smear test rather than refer directly to women.
In a press release issued yesterday to promote smear tests, the Scottish government pushed “people” to go for a check-up, with the message that “two people” die from cervical cancer each day.
Surely the only other group that is relevant here after "women" are pre-surgical, transgender men, ie women who have changed gender and still have a cervix?
(Unless post-surgical transgender men also qualify - which I do not know without looking it up.)
What are the gender-critical lobby saying about them?
How do you have a cervix if you are not a woman
Asking that at some universities would get you the sack.
It was a Kinnock falling into the sea, Milliband bacon sandwich moment, which is why Starmer is dumbfounded.
I agree totally and utterly unacceptable behaviour. One has to ask who is advising Starmer, Boris Johnson? A stupid, stupid stunt.
I'm not sure how I would advise Starmer. Stunts usually backfire, but certainly they seem to do Boris little harm and you do need to get attention, and judging which ones might work is hard. And it's easy for me to say he cannot out Boris Boris and shouldn't try, but it has been awhile, under odd circumstances admittedly, and the cool, calm approach doesn't get many pulses racing.
Maybe it wasn't a stunt. Maybe Starmer's realised there's more money to be made now being an HGV driver than being leader of the opposition.
Not if you can't reverse without actually knocking a bridge over.
Lockdown worked for me. Hardly any traffic on the way to work. Saved me 30 min every day.
You weren’t actually locked down though were you? So what you are really saying is that other people’s lockdown worked for you. I realise that you had to go into work because you are a ward doctor, but given the discussion is about how lockdown affected you, I don’t see how your comment reveals anything much, other than you like traffic-free roads.
No, tho only time when I was truly locked down was when I had to isolate for 10 days when Mrs Foxy caught it. It was a bit annoying not being able to leave house and garden, and I am glad that I didn't have to do it longer.
It was nice to have a good garden to sit in during the fine weather of the first lockdown. The second wasn't too bad either. The third was tougher but that was when I was helping on ICU. I don't want to go there again.
I don't think there will be a fourth, even though the NHS is a rickety house of cards.
There wont be a fourth. Not in a meaningful way anyway. That's because peeps like me and all my mates (and millions others I suspect) who obeyed the last three are NOT prepared to do it again now that the vulnerable have been vaxed.
The trouble is, if the government says the pubs have to close, they have to close. That said, I am sceptical that there will be any more. Maybe it’s my wishful thinking.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
At last, an explicit admission that the Johnson government negotiated the WA in bad faith, never had any intention of keeping its word, and lied to the British public in the 2019 election. Quite a moment. https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1448018739623038982
You are reading what Big Dom actually says, right?
"For all the cant about international law, a/ states break it every week, b/ the idea it's the epitome of morality is low grade student politics pushed by lawyers/officials to constrain politics they oppose. Govt shd focus on solving problems & chill viz "i/n law" viz NI #IMBill2"
"Shd we generally stick to deals? Of course. Sometimes break them? Of course. Just like the EU, US, China and every other state does. International diplomacy cannot be judged by the standards of a student duel, and lawyers are hired help not the masters"
I actually kind of agree with him. Not in the sense of simply 'chilling' about it, but the way it is often referred to as immutable and universally agreed set of principles and very specific actions is frequently nonsense. Some of the worst regimes on earth would claim to totally be respecting international law in their actions regarding other nations.
In all honesty the idea you don't break treaties the instant it is convenient for you is probably pretty recent in some ways, if a cursory look at medieval history is any indication. Not that we should do so flippantly, not at all, but talk around international law is very often posturing.
In medieval history, they went to actual war when one side broke a treaty. Not sure that's a good analogy.
Also I don't think countries do deliberately break treaties very often. They might allow treaties to fall into disuse, if the other side doesn't care too much, through a different interpretation of the obligations and so on.
The purpose of almost any treaty is to get the other side to commit to do something, or to not do something, when they may not be willing when it comes to the point. Precisely the situation of the NIP. These are serious commitments and treated as such.
I was being jokey, but I certainly didn't say nations break treaties often now.
But the medieval analogy I stand by, not on the basis that it led to war, but that it showed that the rule seemed to be that if you felt strong enough you'd break it, since everyone was up to it. Thing are much better now, thankfully.
This is true, but only because the threshold for going to war was lower in the Middle Ages, I think.
War in the Middle Ages was a really difficult affair. Basically the whole world was made up of agricultural societies, with small surpluses. War tended to be seasonal, with soldiers drawn from a peasantry that had to be back home for harvest. Infrastructure and logistics meant that wintertime fighting was... counterproductive. A frequent feature of battles was an ally reserving its forces an observing the battle. If things went badly they'd sometimes leave without getting involved or, worse, switch sides. In short, war was a serious undertaking often with dire consequences for the legitimacy of the ruler who chose it, as the ad hoc taxes often needed to finance campaigns would turn the nobility hostile to the monarch.
We tend to think of the mediaeval era has being quite warlike, but many battles were quite small-scale, and wars often contained long fallow periods of no activity.
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
Is this the same Sadiq Khan who Londoners re-elected as Mayor a few months ago?
It was a Kinnock falling into the sea, Milliband bacon sandwich moment, which is why Starmer is dumbfounded.
I agree totally and utterly unacceptable behaviour. One has to ask who is advising Starmer, Boris Johnson? A stupid, stupid stunt.
I'm not sure how I would advise Starmer. Stunts usually backfire, but certainly they seem to do Boris little harm and you do need to get attention, and judging which ones might work is hard. And it's easy for me to say he cannot out Boris Boris and shouldn't try, but it has been awhile, under odd circumstances admittedly, and the cool, calm approach doesn't get many pulses racing.
Maybe it wasn't a stunt. Maybe Starmer's realised there's more money to be made now being an HGV driver than being leader of the opposition.
Not if you can't reverse without actually knocking a bridge over.
Well, everybody has to start somewhere. It was his first lesson.
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
I take it 'Trusted Trader' is suddenly the new big thing. Forgive me if I missed it, but have you ever actually mentioned it before this evening?
Here's one example in January to william when I thought things were going well as the trusted trader scheme was going to happen. Before william saw the light. 😉
Its always been the workable solution to this mess.
ECJ oversight is surely the main new stumbling block. It's hard to see the EU giving ground on that.
Its hard to see the EU having a choice.
Its back to the same argument I've made for years now, if the UK is prepared to play them then we have all the cards. And Frost unlike May is prepared to play them.
If there's no deal (which is now Article 16) then there's no backstop Protocol so the EU gets maximum disruption and has to either accept a gaping hole in the market, or expel Ireland from the Market, or put a border in Ireland. None of those are pretty options.
If there's a deal on UK terms (so no ECJ, but there's neutral arbitration instead) then they don't get everything they want but there's a working solution.
Game theory suggests they have no choice but to go for the latter option. However much they hate it.
At last, an explicit admission that the Johnson government negotiated the WA in bad faith, never had any intention of keeping its word, and lied to the British public in the 2019 election. Quite a moment. https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1448018739623038982
You are reading what Big Dom actually says, right?
"For all the cant about international law, a/ states break it every week, b/ the idea it's the epitome of morality is low grade student politics pushed by lawyers/officials to constrain politics they oppose. Govt shd focus on solving problems & chill viz "i/n law" viz NI #IMBill2"
"Shd we generally stick to deals? Of course. Sometimes break them? Of course. Just like the EU, US, China and every other state does. International diplomacy cannot be judged by the standards of a student duel, and lawyers are hired help not the masters"
I actually kind of agree with him. Not in the sense of simply 'chilling' about it, but the way it is often referred to as immutable and universally agreed set of principles and very specific actions is frequently nonsense. Some of the worst regimes on earth would claim to totally be respecting international law in their actions regarding other nations.
In all honesty the idea you don't break treaties the instant it is convenient for you is probably pretty recent in some ways, if a cursory look at medieval history is any indication. Not that we should do so flippantly, not at all, but talk around international law is very often posturing.
In medieval history, they went to actual war when one side broke a treaty. Not sure that's a good analogy.
Also I don't think countries do deliberately break treaties very often. They might allow treaties to fall into disuse, if the other side doesn't care too much, through a different interpretation of the obligations and so on.
The purpose of almost any treaty is to get the other side to commit to do something, or to not do something, when they may not be willing when it comes to the point. Precisely the situation of the NIP. These are serious commitments and treated as such.
I was being jokey, but I certainly didn't say nations break treaties often now.
But the medieval analogy I stand by, not on the basis that it led to war, but that it showed that the rule seemed to be that if you felt strong enough you'd break it, since everyone was up to it. Thing are much better now, thankfully.
This is true, but only because the threshold for going to war was lower in the Middle Ages, I think.
War in the Middle Ages was a really difficult affair. Basically the whole world was made up of agricultural societies, with small surpluses. War tended to be seasonal, with soldiers drawn from a peasantry that had to be back home for harvest. Infrastructure and logistics meant that wintertime fighting was... counterproductive. A frequent feature of battles was an ally reserving its forces an observing the battle. If things went badly they'd sometimes leave without getting involved or, worse, switch sides. In short, war was a serious undertaking often with dire consequences for the legitimacy of the ruler who chose it, as the ad hoc taxes often needed to finance campaigns would turn the nobility hostile to the monarch.
We tend to think of the mediaeval era has being quite warlike, but many battles were quite small-scale, and wars often contained long fallow periods of no activity.
Putting an army in the field for any length of time is damned expensive and difficult in so many ways. Outside a complete breakdown leading to chaos it's not easy to fight all the time!
A book I very much enjoyed which was recommended on here was By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare, which despite the title also talked a lot about the mundane realities of warring.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
I would argue that the social benefits of Covid, such as the WFH revolution and people having an opportunity to reprioritise in their lives, more than outweighs the social harms.
Yet there are those for whom the periods of enforced isolation have been purgatory whether because they are alone or with someone with whom they no longer want to live or for a myriad other reasons.
Many have, as you say, coped not only well but prospered. Getting off the commuting treadmill has been a positive personal benefit but I'd never want to generalise it.
It's clear some on here have found it hard going at times and if this forum has provided some much needed contact I'm delighted we've all managed to help each other through this.
Lockdown was horrific. Depressing. Unbearable. I’m still astounded whenever I hear anyone suggest that they enjoyed it. A closed world is grim.
I'm with you. Lockdown 3 took me close to a total breakdown, and it has left permanent mental scars on me. I can never do it again. I would rather take my chances with a plague + vaccine
I have plenty of friends who weathered most of it just fine (generally richer, older people in big houses, often outside London) tho by the end, even the most relaxed were beginning to fray, in quirky ways
I have other friends who were exactly like us. They hated most of it, and they suffered accordingly. I know of at least 2 divorces
Lockdowns were pretty bad. At least I could still go to work (in manufacturing, so continued to go in throughout the entire horror,) and I have a husband to come home to afterwards. I shudder to think what it was like for single people working from home in officey jobs - for most of them the prolonged isolation must've been dreadful.
A mate of mine falls into that category. He’s quite an introverted guy but absolutely hated lockdown WFH, it took him to the brink of depression. Extremely lonely.
My wife's best friend moved into our spare bedroom in lockdown 3 because she's single, lives alone and her office was shut. She just needed some actual human contact with real people. It was nice to have her stay as well after essentially a year of it being just me and my wife alone together every evening. I love her but it's not easy to only spend time with the same person all day and then all evening and night for months on end.
That was a very kind thing you both did, notwithstanding it was pleasant for you both as well. I think most people in that situation would neither request nor receive such an offer.
Thanks, that's nice of you to say. I think I put myself in her shoes and realised that I'm lucky to have a family in London I can easily go and live with, but she's not British and her family live in Hong Kong. Her choices were to stay in London alone or go and stay with a distant relative in Hull and probably end up working in their takeaway shop. It's when she said she was seriously considering the Hull option my wife realised just how bad her situation was and we discussed the idea of her moving into the spare room until the end of severe lockdown. I wouldn't want to go and live with basically randoms in Hull that I've never met.
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
Is this the same Sadiq Khan who Londoners re-elected as Mayor a few months ago?
Yebbut that was before he cancelled this year's NYE fireworks.
i) if Boris had done this most of the country would be laughing along with him. It's bloody annoying if you want a non-Tory government, but there we are.
ii) The backward reverse towards a tight parking space is so ripe for an AI solution that it is irrelevant.
Who advised him that this set up was, excuse the pun, anything but an accident waiting to happen?
Starmer isn't getting the rub of the greens. No 2016 Cenotaph footage for Starmer should he ever place his wreath upside down.
Starmer is supposed to have a new team of comms and strategy people in place.
These fireworks are a great opportunity for levelling up. Take the money normally spent in London and spend it in Leigh or Rotherham instead. Then do the same with bus fares, etc.
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
I take it 'Trusted Trader' is suddenly the new big thing. Forgive me if I missed it, but have you ever actually mentioned it before this evening?
Here's one example in January to william when I thought things were going well as the trusted trader scheme was going to happen. Before william saw the light. 😉
Its always been the workable solution to this mess.
ECJ oversight is surely the main new stumbling block. It's hard to see the EU giving ground on that.
Its hard to see the EU having a choice.
Its back to the same argument I've made for years now, if the UK is prepared to play them then we have all the cards. And Frost unlike May is prepared to play them.
If there's no deal (which is now Article 16) then there's no backstop Protocol so the EU gets maximum disruption and has to either accept a gaping hole in the market, or expel Ireland from the Market, or put a border in Ireland. None of those are pretty options.
If there's a deal on UK terms (so no ECJ, but there's neutral arbitration instead) then they don't get everything they want but there's a working solution.
Game theory suggests they have no choice but to go for the latter option. However much they hate it.
There's no way they'll put a border in Ireland, and they'll be reluctant in the extreme to give up ECJ oversight. I guess that only leaves termination of the Withdrawal Agreement and back to no deal. Interesting times.
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
Is this the same Sadiq Khan who Londoners re-elected as Mayor a few months ago?
By an unexpectedly narrow margin. Against Shaun Bailey.
Even people who didn't like Khan may have voted for him when the opposition is a Tory/Bailey. But even still, two thirds voted against Khan in the first round.
Now compare that to the re-election of Ben Houchen.
London’s famous New Year’s Eve fireworks display has been cancelled for a second year due to the pandemic."
Insane. Sadiq Khan. FFS
He still won't get the night tube running either. The guy is so useless. Women are being put in danger and all he does is talk about it. No action at all.
I don't know anyone that has a single good word for him. God knows who voted for him
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
Is this the same Sadiq Khan who Londoners re-elected as Mayor a few months ago?
By an unexpectedly narrow margin. Against Shaun Bailey.
Even people who didn't like Khan may have voted for him when the opposition is a Tory/Bailey. But even still, two thirds voted against Khan in the first round.
Now compare that to the re-election of Ben Houchen.
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
I take it 'Trusted Trader' is suddenly the new big thing. Forgive me if I missed it, but have you ever actually mentioned it before this evening?
Here's one example in January to william when I thought things were going well as the trusted trader scheme was going to happen. Before william saw the light. 😉
Its always been the workable solution to this mess.
ECJ oversight is surely the main new stumbling block. It's hard to see the EU giving ground on that.
Its hard to see the EU having a choice.
Its back to the same argument I've made for years now, if the UK is prepared to play them then we have all the cards. And Frost unlike May is prepared to play them.
If there's no deal (which is now Article 16) then there's no backstop Protocol so the EU gets maximum disruption and has to either accept a gaping hole in the market, or expel Ireland from the Market, or put a border in Ireland. None of those are pretty options.
If there's a deal on UK terms (so no ECJ, but there's neutral arbitration instead) then they don't get everything they want but there's a working solution.
Game theory suggests they have no choice but to go for the latter option. However much they hate it.
There's no way they'll put a border in Ireland, and they'll be reluctant in the extreme to give up ECJ oversight. I guess that only leaves termination of the Withdrawal Agreement and back to no deal. Interesting times.
Termination of the Withdrawal Agreement isn't a solution though. It just widens the whole in the Single Market unless they enforce a border in Ireland.
How do they ensure the "integrity" of the market, while not enforcing a border in Ireland? No deal doesn't do that, a deal where we bow down on their terms isn't an option post-May.
So once you remove all the impossible options, the only option left is for them to compromise. However reluctant in the extreme they are.
It was a Kinnock falling into the sea, Milliband bacon sandwich moment, which is why Starmer is dumbfounded.
I agree totally and utterly unacceptable behaviour. One has to ask who is advising Starmer, Boris Johnson? A stupid, stupid stunt.
I'm not sure how I would advise Starmer. Stunts usually backfire, but certainly they seem to do Boris little harm and you do need to get attention, and judging which ones might work is hard. And it's easy for me to say he cannot out Boris Boris and shouldn't try, but it has been awhile, under odd circumstances admittedly, and the cool, calm approach doesn't get many pulses racing.
Maybe it wasn't a stunt. Maybe Starmer's realised there's more money to be made now being an HGV driver than being leader of the opposition.
Come on Al Labour can do so much better than this loser.
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
I take it 'Trusted Trader' is suddenly the new big thing. Forgive me if I missed it, but have you ever actually mentioned it before this evening?
Here's one example in January to william when I thought things were going well as the trusted trader scheme was going to happen. Before william saw the light. 😉
Its always been the workable solution to this mess.
ECJ oversight is surely the main new stumbling block. It's hard to see the EU giving ground on that.
Its hard to see the EU having a choice.
Its back to the same argument I've made for years now, if the UK is prepared to play them then we have all the cards. And Frost unlike May is prepared to play them.
If there's no deal (which is now Article 16) then there's no backstop Protocol so the EU gets maximum disruption and has to either accept a gaping hole in the market, or expel Ireland from the Market, or put a border in Ireland. None of those are pretty options.
If there's a deal on UK terms (so no ECJ, but there's neutral arbitration instead) then they don't get everything they want but there's a working solution.
Game theory suggests they have no choice but to go for the latter option. However much they hate it.
There's no way they'll put a border in Ireland, and they'll be reluctant in the extreme to give up ECJ oversight. I guess that only leaves termination of the Withdrawal Agreement and back to no deal. Interesting times.
Nah, it's never going to be no deal. The TCA is signed and fully ratified on both sides as a separate agreement. It would need all 27 nations for the EU to pull the trigger on their 12 month notice of leaving. This is why the UK hand is so strong, both sides realise that in a world where the EU has got nothing to use as leverage there's no way they can force the UK to not pull the trigger on A16. It's also why after a year of saying no to reopening it, they've reopened it.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, in comparison to Khan, Red Ken feels like a Titan, and a proper mayor.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
I take it 'Trusted Trader' is suddenly the new big thing. Forgive me if I missed it, but have you ever actually mentioned it before this evening?
Here's one example in January to william when I thought things were going well as the trusted trader scheme was going to happen. Before william saw the light. 😉
Its always been the workable solution to this mess.
ECJ oversight is surely the main new stumbling block. It's hard to see the EU giving ground on that.
Its hard to see the EU having a choice.
Its back to the same argument I've made for years now, if the UK is prepared to play them then we have all the cards. And Frost unlike May is prepared to play them.
If there's no deal (which is now Article 16) then there's no backstop Protocol so the EU gets maximum disruption and has to either accept a gaping hole in the market, or expel Ireland from the Market, or put a border in Ireland. None of those are pretty options.
If there's a deal on UK terms (so no ECJ, but there's neutral arbitration instead) then they don't get everything they want but there's a working solution.
Game theory suggests they have no choice but to go for the latter option. However much they hate it.
There's no way they'll put a border in Ireland, and they'll be reluctant in the extreme to give up ECJ oversight. I guess that only leaves termination of the Withdrawal Agreement and back to no deal. Interesting times.
Nah, it's never going to be no deal. The TCA is signed and fully ratified on both sides as a separate agreement. It would need all 27 nations for the EU to pull the trigger on their 12 month notice of leaving. This is why the UK hand is so strong, both sides realise that in a world where the EU has got nothing to use as leverage there's no way they can force the UK to not pull the trigger on A16. It's also why after a year of saying no to reopening it, they've reopened it.
Exactly. And as much as all their outriders insist the EU can't countenance no ECJ oversight (weeks after saying they couldn't countenance reopening it) the reality is they don't have any alternative solutions.
If the choice is Article 16 (which they have no control over), or an arbitration program - then arbitration is the rational choice for them. However much they hate it, all the outriders are going to be embarrassed when its agreed. Or they'll just move on to talking up the EU's "sensible solution".
I would argue that the social benefits of Covid, such as the WFH revolution and people having an opportunity to reprioritise in their lives, more than outweighs the social harms.
Yet there are those for whom the periods of enforced isolation have been purgatory whether because they are alone or with someone with whom they no longer want to live or for a myriad other reasons.
Many have, as you say, coped not only well but prospered. Getting off the commuting treadmill has been a positive personal benefit but I'd never want to generalise it.
It's clear some on here have found it hard going at times and if this forum has provided some much needed contact I'm delighted we've all managed to help each other through this.
Lockdown was horrific. Depressing. Unbearable. I’m still astounded whenever I hear anyone suggest that they enjoyed it. A closed world is grim.
The only thing worse than lockdown is other people.
It was a Kinnock falling into the sea, Milliband bacon sandwich moment, which is why Starmer is dumbfounded.
I agree totally and utterly unacceptable behaviour. One has to ask who is advising Starmer, Boris Johnson? A stupid, stupid stunt.
I'm not sure how I would advise Starmer. Stunts usually backfire, but certainly they seem to do Boris little harm and you do need to get attention, and judging which ones might work is hard. And it's easy for me to say he cannot out Boris Boris and shouldn't try, but it has been awhile, under odd circumstances admittedly, and the cool, calm approach doesn't get many pulses racing.
Maybe it wasn't a stunt. Maybe Starmer's realised there's more money to be made now being an HGV driver than being leader of the opposition.
Not if you can't reverse without actually knocking a bridge over.
Well, everybody has to start somewhere. It was his first lesson.
His response to you have failed was "very good" FFS is that the best he could think of.
Absolutely no spontaneity no humour no nothing.
Any Labour supporter who thinks he has a chance of winning a GE is kidding themselves
I liked the sound of Blue Labour, back in 2011 when EdM was tempted by it. The fact that some people on here taunt Conservatives by saying that’s what Boris’s govt is makes me glad I voted for them, so I looked forward to reading this article - didn’t make it past the first paragraph! Jeez
I liked the sound of Blue Labour, back in 2011 when EdM was tempted by it. The fact that some people on here taunt Conservatives by saying that’s what Boris’s govt is makes me glad I voted for them, so I looked forward to reading this article - didn’t make it past the first paragraph! Jeez
There was no polling reaction, and no National Cringe. It was just mildly amusing
The Sheffield Rally cringe-fest-moment WAS damaging. I wonder if he still occasionally wakes up in a cold sweat, remembering it
Viz letterbocks once said if you whenever felt cold indoors, rather than turn the heating on you should recall that rally and the glow of embarrassment would save you a fortune
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, in comparison to Khan, Red Ken feels like a Titan, and a proper mayor.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
Red Ken at his best, which is what he was when Boris started running against him in 2007, was the epitome of success for a Mayor up to then. He'd left much of his 'red'ness behind him and had truly mastered the role of London Mayor. He was popular, charismatic and able to succeed in and out of the party machinery.
There's a reason he was such an extremely heavy odds-on favourite for re-election in 2008 originally and why even at heavy odds-on he was still tipped as 'value' for re-election by @MikeSmithson and others in 2007.
The only comparable figure I can think of to Red Ken in how he has so seriously and subsequently gone from master of all his domain to public ridicule is Rudy Giuliani.
"As transsexual people, we deplore the continuing attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock (News, Oct 9 & 11). We are appalled that trans rights — our rights — are being used to excuse an unprincipled campaign of harassment and abuse. Like any other group, trans people hold a range of opinions. Attacks on the freedom of expression are not progressive and do nothing to fight against actual prejudice or win better services for trans people. If bullies manage to silence Kathleen Stock, they will not stop there."
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
To be fair, the Trusted Trader programme was never going to be up and running within six months of Brexit and in the middle of a pandemic. What the UK (rightly) is upset about is that we haven't started the implementation process. We should now have an IT vendor putting in place the systems meaning essentially seamless trade in either direction.
The reality is that there is - as yet - no detailed specification. There are proposals, but the commission has been extremely slow - whether a consequence of them being instutitionally slow (which is certainly true) or because they are deliberately dragging their feet.
What I would like to see is a rapid implementation timetable that is stuck to by both sides (albeit with the risk that Accenture ends up being months late on delivery, again). This isn't the most complex thing in the world: detailed specs by year end; then development until July 2022, and with a roll out in the second half of the year. This isn't rocket surgery. Those are achievable timescales.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, in comparison to Khan, Red Ken feels like a Titan, and a proper mayor.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
You're just confusing entertainment with politics. I don't see any evidence that a bouncy showman is a better leader than a serious and quiet steward. I suspect the latter is better. Give me an engineer over a gameshow host any day. You can keep your circuses, thanks.
I would argue that the social benefits of Covid, such as the WFH revolution and people having an opportunity to reprioritise in their lives, more than outweighs the social harms.
Yet there are those for whom the periods of enforced isolation have been purgatory whether because they are alone or with someone with whom they no longer want to live or for a myriad other reasons.
Many have, as you say, coped not only well but prospered. Getting off the commuting treadmill has been a positive personal benefit but I'd never want to generalise it.
It's clear some on here have found it hard going at times and if this forum has provided some much needed contact I'm delighted we've all managed to help each other through this.
Lockdown was horrific. Depressing. Unbearable. I’m still astounded whenever I hear anyone suggest that they enjoyed it. A closed world is grim.
The only thing worse than lockdown is other people.
"As transsexual people, we deplore the continuing attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock (News, Oct 9 & 11). We are appalled that trans rights — our rights — are being used to excuse an unprincipled campaign of harassment and abuse. Like any other group, trans people hold a range of opinions. Attacks on the freedom of expression are not progressive and do nothing to fight against actual prejudice or win better services for trans people. If bullies manage to silence Kathleen Stock, they will not stop there."
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, in comparison to Khan, Red Ken feels like a Titan, and a proper mayor.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
You're just confusing entertainment with politics. I don't see any evidence that a bouncy showman is a better leader than a serious and quiet steward. I suspect the latter is better. Give me an engineer over a gameshow host any day. You can keep your circuses, thanks.
Yeah, well you can fuck off, coz you don't live in London, or if you do, you're lying, and you don't really. So there
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
To be fair, the Trusted Trader programme was never going to be up and running within six months of Brexit and in the middle of a pandemic. What the UK (rightly) is upset about is that we haven't started the implementation process. We should now have an IT vendor putting in place the systems meaning essentially seamless trade in either direction.
The reality is that there is - as yet - no detailed specification. There are proposals, but the commission has been extremely slow - whether a consequence of them being instutitionally slow (which is certainly true) or because they are deliberately dragging their feet.
What I would like to see is a rapid implementation timetable that is stuck to by both sides (albeit with the risk that Accenture ends up being months late on delivery, again). This isn't the most complex thing in the world: detailed specs by year end; then development until July 2022, and with a roll out in the second half of the year. This isn't rocket surgery. Those are achievable timescales.
And if it has all been allowed to be worked on since 2016 instead of Varadkar nixxing it for short-term political gain, then it would have been much easier done by now.
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
I take it 'Trusted Trader' is suddenly the new big thing. Forgive me if I missed it, but have you ever actually mentioned it before this evening?
Here's one example in January to william when I thought things were going well as the trusted trader scheme was going to happen. Before william saw the light. 😉
Its always been the workable solution to this mess.
ECJ oversight is surely the main new stumbling block. It's hard to see the EU giving ground on that.
If the ECJ split its role, so there was an Sovereign EU Court, where the plantiffs would need to be EU States, and a Standards Tribunal (where arguments over what exactly constitutes wire wool would be heard), it would make things a lot easier.
"As transsexual people, we deplore the continuing attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock (News, Oct 9 & 11). We are appalled that trans rights — our rights — are being used to excuse an unprincipled campaign of harassment and abuse. Like any other group, trans people hold a range of opinions. Attacks on the freedom of expression are not progressive and do nothing to fight against actual prejudice or win better services for trans people. If bullies manage to silence Kathleen Stock, they will not stop there."
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, in comparison to Khan, Red Ken feels like a Titan, and a proper mayor.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
You're just confusing entertainment with politics. I don't see any evidence that a bouncy showman is a better leader than a serious and quiet steward. I suspect the latter is better. Give me an engineer over a gameshow host any day. You can keep your circuses, thanks.
Yeah, well you can fuck off, coz you don't live in London, or if you do, you're lying, and you don't really. So there
Apparently Aberdeenshire is London, because when I was seeing closed petrol stations I was also told it was a London-only problem.
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
To be fair, the Trusted Trader programme was never going to be up and running within six months of Brexit and in the middle of a pandemic. What the UK (rightly) is upset about is that we haven't started the implementation process. We should now have an IT vendor putting in place the systems meaning essentially seamless trade in either direction.
The reality is that there is - as yet - no detailed specification. There are proposals, but the commission has been extremely slow - whether a consequence of them being instutitionally slow (which is certainly true) or because they are deliberately dragging their feet.
What I would like to see is a rapid implementation timetable that is stuck to by both sides (albeit with the risk that Accenture ends up being months late on delivery, again). This isn't the most complex thing in the world: detailed specs by year end; then development until July 2022, and with a roll out in the second half of the year. This isn't rocket surgery. Those are achievable timescales.
And if it has all been allowed to be worked on since 2016 instead of Varadkar nixxing it for short-term political gain, then it would have been much easier done by now.
Yes, Varadkar did indeed play this for political benefit. Mind you, we should have had detailed specifications ready on day one. It would have effectively given us the advntage of all discussions being relative to our proposal.
Just read Frost's speech (well the intro and the NI Protocol bit) and it seems entirely reasonable and fair. Deliberately reasonable and fair, considering he's going into negotiations I suspect. Can't see anything provocative there at all, I don't see why people are complaining.
One element that struck me was this (emphasis mine): Whether or not you agree with either analysis - the facts on the ground are what matter above all. Maybe there is a world in which the Protocol could have worked, more sensitively implemented. But the situation has now moved on. We now face a very serious situation. The Protocol is not working. It has completely lost consent in one community in Northern Ireland. It is not doing the thing it was set up to do – protect the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In fact it is doing the opposite. It has to change.
This matches without spelling it out exactly what a lot of us have said, that if the Trusted Trader scheme had been appropriately implemented then the Protocol as written could have worked. It wasn't, so we are where we are.
No bad faith.
Do you have any evidence that the protocol ever had the consent of the Unionists? I didn't think that you could lose what you never had.
The problem with the protocol as far as Unionists are concerned is that it has significantly integrated the Island. Cross border trade is up, cross Irish Sea trade down.
No of course it never had the consent of the Unionists, and quite right too, they had concerns over what would happen next.
But if the deal had been sensitively implemented with a Trusted Trader scheme etc then would it have raised cross border trade, and lowered cross Sea trade? If a Trusted Trader scheme had been sensitively implemented avoiding all the Unionists concerns then potentially the Protocol could have won their support.
It wasn't, so it didn't, so A16 is appropriate.
To be fair, the Trusted Trader programme was never going to be up and running within six months of Brexit and in the middle of a pandemic. What the UK (rightly) is upset about is that we haven't started the implementation process. We should now have an IT vendor putting in place the systems meaning essentially seamless trade in either direction.
The reality is that there is - as yet - no detailed specification. There are proposals, but the commission has been extremely slow - whether a consequence of them being instutitionally slow (which is certainly true) or because they are deliberately dragging their feet.
What I would like to see is a rapid implementation timetable that is stuck to by both sides (albeit with the risk that Accenture ends up being months late on delivery, again). This isn't the most complex thing in the world: detailed specs by year end; then development until July 2022, and with a roll out in the second half of the year. This isn't rocket surgery. Those are achievable timescales.
"Seamless trade in either direction" Has become "seamless tirade in either direction."
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, in comparison to Khan, Red Ken feels like a Titan, and a proper mayor.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
Red Ken at his best, which is what he was when Boris started running against him in 2007, was the epitome of success for a Mayor up to then. He'd left much of his 'red'ness behind him and had truly mastered the role of London Mayor. He was popular, charismatic and able to succeed in and out of the party machinery.
There's a reason he was such an extremely heavy odds-on favourite for re-election in 2008 originally and why even at heavy odds-on he was still tipped as 'value' for re-election by @MikeSmithson and others in 2007.
The only comparable figure I can think of to Red Ken in how he has so seriously and subsequently gone from master of all his domain to public ridicule is Rudy Giuliani.
I think Guiliani has managed to beat Red Ken for depths of decline.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, in comparison to Khan, Red Ken feels like a Titan, and a proper mayor.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
You're just confusing entertainment with politics. I don't see any evidence that a bouncy showman is a better leader than a serious and quiet steward. I suspect the latter is better. Give me an engineer over a gameshow host any day. You can keep your circuses, thanks.
Yeah, well you can fuck off, coz you don't live in London, or if you do, you're lying, and you don't really. So there
Apparently Aberdeenshire is London, because when I was seeing closed petrol stations I was also told it was a London-only problem.
I await my mayoral vote eagerly.
Filled up today at Tesco in Ilford North without any problems.
Were the New Year fireworks that big a thing? A whiff of the Gone With the Wind ‘they’re preventing me watching a film I’ve never watched and never will watch’ manufactured outrage.
Fairly big, I know lots of people who went every year. Not something I would do personally but I think they sold out every year and tourists really loved seeing them and this year London is going to have loads of tourists.
Yes. Not my bag but a big deal for many. I live on a hill in north London and would often watch them from afar if we hosted guests. Seems a ludicrous decision.
Utterly ludicrous
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
He's a puritan c*** who wants everyone to stay locked up. He revelled in lockdown and keeping Londoners off the streets and out of the bars and clubs. He's absolutely the worst mayor we've had.
He's definitely the worst. There have only been three but Khan manages to be in a different, lower division to the other two
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
Ken was a great mayor. Mr London. A proper go-getter in City Hall. Sadly the drink got him, and he went mad.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but yes, in comparison to Khan, Red Ken feels like a Titan, and a proper mayor.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
You're just confusing entertainment with politics. I don't see any evidence that a bouncy showman is a better leader than a serious and quiet steward. I suspect the latter is better. Give me an engineer over a gameshow host any day. You can keep your circuses, thanks.
Yeah, well you can fuck off, coz you don't live in London, or if you do, you're lying, and you don't really. So there
Apparently Aberdeenshire is London, because when I was seeing closed petrol stations I was also told it was a London-only problem.
I await my mayoral vote eagerly.
Filled up today at Tesco in Ilford North without any problems.
Haven't seen any problems here recently too! Banff == Barnet
Comments
Helen Ward
@profhelenward
·
1h
"The UN under secretary-general, Vera Songwe, said Hancock’s “success” in handling the UK’s pandemic response was a testament to the strengths he would bring to the role."
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3229621#Comment_3229621
Or July proposing Article 16 and a trusted trader scheme once it became clear that the EU weren't going to implement it: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3495813#Comment_3495813
Or way back in 2018 when May was still PM: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2045105#Comment_2045105
Or February 2019 when May was still PM: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2190673#Comment_2190673
Its always been the workable solution to this mess.
And this is universal. It's not just my friends - left and right - who despise him, it's everyone. He is a void. He is inert. He doesn't do anything. His leadership through this crisis has been - nil. Nought. Invisible.
Labour will probably make him leader after Starmer
Post Blair governments have dropped the bollock on this.
The key in giving feedback is to give it from a place of caring, and to make it clear that it is for the purposes of improvement, not blame.
@Gallowgate @SandyRentool.
https://news.paddypower.com/football/2021/10/12/breaking-messi-bids-tearful-goodbye-to-psg-ahead-of-newcastle-move-/
Utterly beyond me.
I work at home, alone, and I live alone. I'm pretty fucking resilient but add that situation to a destroyed social world with no travel, no pubs, no restaurants, no lovers, no crowds, no embracing, no touching, no Christmas, no nothing, and suddenly you have - for me - an extreme dystopia, and all of this happening during one of the bleakest winters for a long while
For many many weeks my entire social life, all of it, consisted of one single walk in a freezing, sleeting London park with a friend, for an hour, once a week, with a thermos of mulled wine, and then back home again to the silence and the loneliness.
Inexpressibly bleak and it drove me close to self destruction
And yet my situation was better than many people: trapped in small flats with a dysfunctional marriage or a deeply unhappy family. That was surely worse. And as for domestic violence...
It was seriously horrific for all too many
Can even make crashing a truck boring and humourless
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-58887168
Interesting programme
Also I don't think countries do deliberately break treaties very often. They might allow treaties to fall into disuse, disregard their obligations if the other side doesn't care too much, create a breach through a different interpretation of the obligations and so on.
The purpose of almost any treaty is to get the other side to commit to do something, or to not do something, when they may not be willing when it comes to the point. Precisely the situation of the NIP. Treaties are serious commitments and treated as such.
Don't tell me someone in government has finally done an actual cost-benefit analysis of lockdown?
... I thought not.
But the medieval analogy I stand by, not on the basis that it led to war, but that it showed that the rule seemed to be that if you felt strong enough you'd break it, since everyone was up to it. Thing are much better now, thankfully.
In all other circumstances I would!!
Now he is cocking up his solitary success by mothballing the Night Tube when the rest of London is buzzing.
It’s quite weird, and pathetic.
ii) The backward reverse towards a tight parking space is so ripe for an AI solution that it is irrelevant.
I agree totally and utterly unacceptable behaviour. One has to ask who is advising Starmer, Boris Johnson? A stupid, stupid stunt.
And yet I struggled so bad with lockdowns 2 and especially 3. God knows how young young people on their own, used to a daily and gregarious social life, managed to stay sane
I fear we will have a cascade of mental health issues over the next few years, descending from those long, hellish months of isolation
It was an unprecedented human experiment and we still don't know the results
Ben Houchen for PM 2028?
It's a bit of a gamble, since giving up local prominence to go back into the national arena could blow up in your face if you then don't get any good gigs.
It was nice to have a good garden to sit in during the fine weather of the first lockdown. The second wasn't too bad either. The third was tougher but that was when I was helping on ICU. I don't want to go there again.
I don't think there will be a fourth, even though the NHS is a rickety house of cards.
It is also a big advert for LONDON
In recent years the London NYE fireworks have been up there with Sydney and Taipei and UAE, the ones you watch out for, because we make a real effort. And the London Eye is used cleverly
So they're going to lose all that.... why?
London will look pitiable if other big cities, worldwide, go ahead
Khan is telling the world: Nah, London is dead. Go elsewhere. I presume he has a reason but it needs to be really really good
Father of whom is Peter Maitlis of steel town itself? Sheffield Uni?
Starmer isn't getting the rub of the greens. No 2016 Cenotaph footage for Starmer should he ever place his wreath upside down.
And it is a silver lining to a very dark cloud. I have heard several tales of people getting together - living together, unexpectedly - during Lockdown - just to keep everyone sane. Heart-warming
Every day of the week, Starmer should get out of bed and ask what Tony Blair would do today.
Being in an HGV truck would not be one of the answers.
I majorly disagreed with Red Ken but Jeez at least he had a chirpy, cockney, hedonistic London spirit. He'd have told Khan where to get off with this no-cakes-and-ale bollocks
A frequent feature of battles was an ally reserving its forces an observing the battle. If things went badly they'd sometimes leave without getting involved or, worse, switch sides.
In short, war was a serious undertaking often with dire consequences for the legitimacy of the ruler who chose it, as the ad hoc taxes often needed to finance campaigns would turn the nobility hostile to the monarch.
We tend to think of the mediaeval era has being quite warlike, but many battles were quite small-scale, and wars often contained long fallow periods of no activity.
Its back to the same argument I've made for years now, if the UK is prepared to play them then we have all the cards. And Frost unlike May is prepared to play them.
If there's no deal (which is now Article 16) then there's no backstop Protocol so the EU gets maximum disruption and has to either accept a gaping hole in the market, or expel Ireland from the Market, or put a border in Ireland. None of those are pretty options.
If there's a deal on UK terms (so no ECJ, but there's neutral arbitration instead) then they don't get everything they want but there's a working solution.
Game theory suggests they have no choice but to go for the latter option. However much they hate it.
A book I very much enjoyed which was recommended on here was By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare, which despite the title also talked a lot about the mundane realities of warring.
Take the money normally spent in London and spend it in Leigh or Rotherham instead.
Then do the same with bus fares, etc.
Even people who didn't like Khan may have voted for him when the opposition is a Tory/Bailey. But even still, two thirds voted against Khan in the first round.
Now compare that to the re-election of Ben Houchen.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-letters-restoring-public-confidence-in-the-police-lntq6sj0f
How do they ensure the "integrity" of the market, while not enforcing a border in Ireland? No deal doesn't do that, a deal where we bow down on their terms isn't an option post-May.
So once you remove all the impossible options, the only option left is for them to compromise. However reluctant in the extreme they are.
It's a definite skill, being the mayor of a big world city like London. The one thing you need to do, above all else, is exude optimism and can-do. Big cities thrive on political charisma, on sociable get-up-and-go. Khan looks like he'd rather be a managing a small chain of newsagents in Yorkshire, and sadly but diligently closing several of them to streamline the business. Or he's a suburban solicitor for creeps.
He is not a World City Mayor.
If Labour has a total grasp on this gig, can they please give us someone with personality, and insight, and bouncy cheerfulness, next time. Ta
Rewatching it here, Glynis trips him up I think
https://youtu.be/jh8ktNsie0I
If the choice is Article 16 (which they have no control over), or an arbitration program - then arbitration is the rational choice for them. However much they hate it, all the outriders are going to be embarrassed when its agreed. Or they'll just move on to talking up the EU's "sensible solution".
Absolutely no spontaneity no humour no nothing.
Any Labour supporter who thinks he has a chance of winning a GE is kidding themselves
There was no polling reaction, and no National Cringe. It was just mildly amusing
The Sheffield Rally cringe-fest-moment WAS damaging. I wonder if he still occasionally wakes up in a cold sweat, remembering it
https://unherd.com/2021/10/the-tories-can-save-blue-labour/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=9dc86bb37b&mc_eid=b3f9d039d8
There's a reason he was such an extremely heavy odds-on favourite for re-election in 2008 originally and why even at heavy odds-on he was still tipped as 'value' for re-election by @MikeSmithson and others in 2007.
The only comparable figure I can think of to Red Ken in how he has so seriously and subsequently gone from master of all his domain to public ridicule is Rudy Giuliani.
"As transsexual people, we deplore the continuing attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock (News, Oct 9 & 11). We are appalled that trans rights — our rights — are being used to excuse an unprincipled campaign of harassment and abuse. Like any other group, trans people hold a range of opinions. Attacks on the freedom of expression are not progressive and do nothing to fight against actual prejudice or win better services for trans people. If bullies manage to silence Kathleen Stock, they will not stop there."
The reality is that there is - as yet - no detailed specification. There are proposals, but the commission has been extremely slow - whether a consequence of them being instutitionally slow (which is certainly true) or because they are deliberately dragging their feet.
What I would like to see is a rapid implementation timetable that is stuck to by both sides (albeit with the risk that Accenture ends up being months late on delivery, again). This isn't the most complex thing in the world: detailed specs by year end; then development until July 2022, and with a roll out in the second half of the year. This isn't rocket surgery. Those are achievable timescales.
I await my mayoral vote eagerly.
Has become "seamless tirade in either direction."