Howdy, Stranger!

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

Those saying Brexit right down to just 38% – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 15 in General
imageThose saying Brexit right down to just 38% – politicalbetting.com

The same YouGov poll that had the CON lead back in double figures also had what for the government is the second-worst Brexit tracker finding on record. The latest split is in the chart above.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,609
    edited October 15
    It's interesting that Conservative VI (41%) is higher than "Brexit was a good idea" (38%). I know there's also procedural support for Brexit that isn't in the 38% as in "it may have been a bad idea but we voted for it and we should get it done". However I feel like it shows there's something wrong with the conventional explanation for Con support that it's basically a Leave vs Remain wedge and Con are leading because they consolidate the Leave side.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,964

    It's interesting that Conservative VI (41%) is higher than "Brexit was a good idea" (38%). I know there's also procedural support for Brexit that isn't in the 38% as in "it may have been a bad idea but we voted for it and we should get it done". However I feel like it shows there's something wrong with the conventional explanation for Con support that it's basically a Leave vs Remain wedge and Con are leading because they consolidate the Leave side.

    Voting numbers exclude don't knows while non voting numbers generally don't so hard making a comparison
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,352

    It's interesting that Conservative VI (41%) is higher than "Brexit was a good idea" (38%). I know there's also procedural support for Brexit that isn't in the 38% as in "it may have been a bad idea but we voted for it and we should get it done". However I feel like it shows there's something wrong with the conventional explanation for Con support that it's basically a Leave vs Remain wedge and Con are leading because they consolidate the Leave side.

    But there are many people who think Brexit was a bad idea who would still vote Conservative - myself for starters.

    I don't know quite how many but of the 49% who said "Wrong" I would have thought at least 15% would be voting Con - ie 7.35% of the whole population. And then there are the DKs where Con support would be higher - maybe 25%.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676
    edited October 15
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701

    It's interesting that Conservative VI (41%) is higher than "Brexit was a good idea" (38%). I know there's also procedural support for Brexit that isn't in the 38% as in "it may have been a bad idea but we voted for it and we should get it done". However I feel like it shows there's something wrong with the conventional explanation for Con support that it's basically a Leave vs Remain wedge and Con are leading because they consolidate the Leave side.

    There is a huge tribal Conservative vote (as for other parties) that is independent of any policies or philosophy, who would vote for the proverbial donkey wearing a blue rosette. They voted for Cameron and May, and for Boris despite his explicitly running against the core policies of Cameron and May.

    Why vote Labour when Boris has pinched all the best bits? Answers on a postcard to Keir Starmer...

    And when Conservatives are caught on the wrong side of culture wars, they look at the polls and row back, as with Marcus Rashford, for instance, or footballers taking the knee.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714
    edited October 15
    Falkirk
    Party 2021 votes 2021 share since 2017
    SNP 1,691 39.2% +3.5%
    Conservative 1,676 38.9% +6.8%
    Labour 679 15.7% -11.4%
    Green 267 6.2% +1.1%
    Total votes 4,313


    Labour 1,004 56.2% -0.4% +13.0% +2.1% -3.8%
    Conservative 423 23.7% -1.9% +15.6% +8.2% +16.0%
    Leigh West Independent ^^ 257 14.4%
    Liberal Democrat 103 5.8% +2.0%


    Surrey Heath
    Frimley Green
    CON GAIN from LD
    Con 896
    LD 877
    Lab 76

    Great results for the Blues - and look at Labour in Falkirk down from 1st to a poor 3rd. Even in Wigan their vote is down!
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714

    It's interesting that Conservative VI (41%) is higher than "Brexit was a good idea" (38%). I know there's also procedural support for Brexit that isn't in the 38% as in "it may have been a bad idea but we voted for it and we should get it done". However I feel like it shows there's something wrong with the conventional explanation for Con support that it's basically a Leave vs Remain wedge and Con are leading because they consolidate the Leave side.

    There is a huge tribal Conservative vote (as for other parties) that is independent of any policies or philosophy, who would vote for the proverbial donkey wearing a blue rosette. They voted for Cameron and May, and for Boris despite his explicitly running against the core policies of Cameron and May.

    Why vote Labour when Boris has pinched all the best bits? Answers on a postcard to Keir Starmer...

    And when Conservatives are caught on the wrong side of culture wars, they look at the polls and row back, as with Marcus Rashford, for instance, or footballers taking the knee.
    On your last point the Labour stance on 'Trans rights' is a serious mistake.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,676

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,701
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,260
    Cheer up folks: it'll get worse.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Good morning, everyone.

    Better question would be support for rejoining.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,714

    Good morning, everyone.

    Better question would be support for rejoining.

    They don't like that one as they prefer to feed their grievance.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681

    It's interesting that Conservative VI (41%) is higher than "Brexit was a good idea" (38%). I know there's also procedural support for Brexit that isn't in the 38% as in "it may have been a bad idea but we voted for it and we should get it done". However I feel like it shows there's something wrong with the conventional explanation for Con support that it's basically a Leave vs Remain wedge and Con are leading because they consolidate the Leave side.

    There is a huge tribal Conservative vote (as for other parties) that is independent of any policies or philosophy, who would vote for the proverbial donkey wearing a blue rosette. They voted for Cameron and May, and for Boris despite his explicitly running against the core policies of Cameron and May.

    Why vote Labour when Boris has pinched all the best bits? Answers on a postcard to Keir Starmer...

    And when Conservatives are caught on the wrong side of culture wars, they look at the polls and row back, as with Marcus Rashford, for instance, or footballers taking the knee.
    Looks like somebody else was against taking the knee:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10088027/Katie-Couric-admits-editing-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-interview-protect-late-justice.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,104

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    If even Elon Musk has managed it, I would have thought it must be fairly easy actually.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,964
    Fieldwork for the poll 12-23 October? Yougov breaking new ground here.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,806

    Good morning, everyone.

    Better question would be support for rejoining.

    Not much good for continuing this tracker though.

    It would be a relevant new question (indeed, would have been since we formally left). It is asked, is it not?

    Support low, presumably? It's a bit like NHS reorganisations. There was a wide view in the NHS that the coalition reforms were a steaming pile of poo, but a clinician I knew with the ear of Ed Miliband was urging him not to propose reversal in 2015 - change is painful and disruptive, even to reverse bad change - they couldn't face doing it all again.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Ed, or 'kneeling' as those who speak English might say...

    'Take a knee' is ridiculous. Do people 'take a back' when they lie down?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,964

    Good morning, everyone.

    Better question would be support for rejoining.

    Hokey cokey is a shit dance. We have picked a side, executed the withdrawal badly but still have to live with it, no point rejoining only to go through it all again.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207

    Mr. Ed, or 'kneeling' as those who speak English might say...

    'Take a knee' is ridiculous. Do people 'take a back' when they lie down?

    The closest is people do 'take a seat' when they sit down.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Thompson, that is a fair point.

    'Taking a knee' is still daft, though.

    Mr. Above, it's the relevant question, though. If people think we were wrong to leave but should not rejoin, that's what matters for politicians trying to either appeal to people's current perspective or trying to persuade them to change their minds.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,964

    Mr. Thompson, that is a fair point.

    'Taking a knee' is still daft, though.

    Mr. Above, it's the relevant question, though. If people think we were wrong to leave but should not rejoin, that's what matters for politicians trying to either appeal to people's current perspective or trying to persuade them to change their minds.

    Disagree with that. "Boris" convinced a load of non Tory voters to vote Tory because of Brexit. He needs them to continue voting Tory. If they revert to being non Tory voters but don't want to rejoin that matters significantly. If they start blaming him and the Tories for a poorly executed Brexit, or no longer find him a useful ally because Brexit is done his majority is at risk.

    I don't think that will happen, as we will get into some spurious row with the French conveniently before the election, and Brexit buttons can be pushed in other ways too.

    The polling I think is most relevant on Brexit is people who voted Brexit but think it is going very badly (rather than badly or wrong with hindsight). They are the most likely to switch, protest vote or revert to not voting at all.

    Whether enough ex-remainers are in favour of rejoining or not matters very little. We are not going to rejoin and none of the main parties will push for us to do so anyway.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Above, even though it's functionally identically to, and involves, kneeling? Fair enough.

    It being an Americanism that doesn't fit in the UK is suitable given the political nonsense being much the same.
  • Mr. Ed, or 'kneeling' as those who speak English might say...

    'Take a knee' is ridiculous. Do people 'take a back' when they lie down?

    It is only ridiculous for those who don't know or don't care about the etymology of the word. It comes from American football, and is definitely a deliberate, specific action that is taken to run out the clock. Kneeling would poorly describe such an action.
    Google search for "take a knee" before 2016
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,964

    Mr. Above, even though it's functionally identically to, and involves, kneeling? Fair enough.

    It being an Americanism that doesn't fit in the UK is suitable given the political nonsense being much the same.

    Do you also object to tennis players serving when we could simply say Federer waved his arm towards the ball?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Above, nope.

    I don't mind most Americanisms. A few jar. 'Could care less' is particularly rubbish (I'm currently replaying Shadow Hearts: Covenant, which is over a decade and a half old, and is excellent, despite being the first place I heard that expression).
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,909
    edited October 15
    We're not rejoining. Even if a party came to power on such a mamifesto, the French would take delight in setting onerous conditions, or simply saying 'non'. Remember Heath trotting after De Gaulle like a puppy dog? He'd have taken a knee if De Gaulle had allowed it.

    It was an abberation, that's all.

    We came to our senses and left. As my daughter said a lot as a teenager ... "Get over it."
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    tlg86 said:

    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Yep. Did this pilot suddenly think, entirely on his own initiative, to suppress information, or was that effectively encouraged by corporate culture set from the top?
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Better question would be support for rejoining.

    More catch up. September @Kantar_UKI Barometer Poll. Join EU 33 (n/c); Stay Out 33 (-1). 1st time the two have been equal in this poll since Feb. 21.

    https://t.co/svOavdZGbm

    Rejoin is not serious politics any time soon.

    But on these numbers, I don't see how it goes away as an idea, or how Johnson's approach is serious politics either.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Romford, the numbers on that help the Conservatives. Keeps it as a big enough idea to encourage those who don't want the fuss of rejoining voting Conservative, without being popular enough to risk them losing.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,478

    Mr. Above, nope.

    I don't mind most Americanisms. A few jar. 'Could care less' is particularly rubbish (I'm currently replaying Shadow Hearts: Covenant, which is over a decade and a half old, and is excellent, despite being the first place I heard that expression).

    ‘Lucked out’ for me. Just sounds like out of luck, but that’s the opposite of what it means.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    Prescient:

    Cheltenham looks particularly strange to me. Cases were rising there in week to 6th Sept, but plummeted in the last week. One of its MSOAs went from being purple to light green in the space of a week! I've never seen that happen before. It's like the virus just disappeared! 3/4

    https://twitter.com/ArtySmokesPS/status/1438598749073330177?s=20

    Covid: False negative Covid test results confirmed

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58921280
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,754

    Mr. Above, nope.

    I don't mind most Americanisms. A few jar. 'Could care less' is particularly rubbish (I'm currently replaying Shadow Hearts: Covenant, which is over a decade and a half old, and is excellent, despite being the first place I heard that expression).

    ‘Lucked out’ for me. Just sounds like out of luck, but that’s the opposite of what it means.
    Discovered tha ‘Tabling an idea’ means the opposite across the pond.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164

    tlg86 said:

    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Yep. Did this pilot suddenly think, entirely on his own initiative, to suppress information, or was that effectively encouraged by corporate culture set from the top?
    Boeing's descent has taken decades. I've written before about how corporate culture leads an organisation, and can be slow to change. Boeing is a classic case of how this happens - in a negative direction.

    Twenty-four years ago, McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing. The new entity was called Boeing, but in reality it was more of a reverse takeover, and MDD's management reigned supreme in the new organisation.

    The problem is, MDD had had a series of (ahem) interesting failures, like the A-12 Avenger-II fiasco, or the MD-11, which never met its performance criteria. Slowly, MDD's management focus on the bottom line has taken over from Boeing's more engineering-led focus, and this seems to have led to Boeing's current woeful performance.

    It'll take a decade or more for them to recover a 'good' engineering-led corporate culture. And that's what they need.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    It's interesting that Conservative VI (41%) is higher than "Brexit was a good idea" (38%). I know there's also procedural support for Brexit that isn't in the 38% as in "it may have been a bad idea but we voted for it and we should get it done". However I feel like it shows there's something wrong with the conventional explanation for Con support that it's basically a Leave vs Remain wedge and Con are leading because they consolidate the Leave side.

    There is a huge tribal Conservative vote (as for other parties) that is independent of any policies or philosophy, who would vote for the proverbial donkey wearing a blue rosette. They voted for Cameron and May, and for Boris despite his explicitly running against the core policies of Cameron and May.

    Why vote Labour when Boris has pinched all the best bits? Answers on a postcard to Keir Starmer...

    And when Conservatives are caught on the wrong side of culture wars, they look at the polls and row back, as with Marcus Rashford, for instance, or footballers taking the knee.
    I don't think that's true. Cameron couldn't get past 36%.

    Both Boris and May tapped a different voter coalition, even though there was a strong overlap.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    edited October 15

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    It started when they merged with McDonnell Douglas, and the bean counters and MBAs replaced the engineers in charge of the company. Then they moved the head office to Chicago, presumably so the very senior management could plausibly say they didn’t know about things like the 737 Max screwup.

    They had a massive order for that plane from one of the US carriers, but on the condition that they wouldn’t need any additional training for pilots already qualified to fly the existing 737 NG series. Combine this with a failed regulatory system at the FAA, that let Boeing basically certify their own aircraft, and you end up with the lead of the certification team deciding to not reference the new systems to airline customers - for what were blantantly commercial reasons.

    The 787 Dreamliner also arrived late, and was then grounded after problems with batteries and fastenings, innovative technologies which weren’t properly developed. The 777X is having test flight issues as you mentioned, again it looks like the new technologies in that aircraft are not yet sufficiently developed for commercial flight - but they’ve sold hundreds of them and there’s pressure to get them certified and out of the door.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,459

    Mr. Above, nope.

    I don't mind most Americanisms. A few jar. 'Could care less' is particularly rubbish (I'm currently replaying Shadow Hearts: Covenant, which is over a decade and a half old, and is excellent, despite being the first place I heard that expression).

    ‘Lucked out’ for me. Just sounds like out of luck, but that’s the opposite of what it means.
    I'm pissed about that, they're annoyed not drunk !!!!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    The 777X is having test flight issues as you mentioned, again it looks like the new technologies in that aircraft are not yet sufficiently developed for commercial flight - but they’ve sold hundreds of them and there’s pressure to get them certified and out of the door.
    Wonder what Emirates have got wind of?

    Emirates president Sir Tim Clark has warned US plane manufacturer Boeing that the Dubai-based carrier will not accept any of the ordered 777X aeroplanes unless they are at 100 percent of what was agreed.

    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/transport/463727-emirates-will-not-accept-less-than-100-from-boeing-777x-order#:~:text=Emirates president Sir Tim Clark,percent of what was agreed.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    felix said:

    Falkirk
    Party 2021 votes 2021 share since 2017
    SNP 1,691 39.2% +3.5%
    Conservative 1,676 38.9% +6.8%
    Labour 679 15.7% -11.4%
    Green 267 6.2% +1.1%
    Total votes 4,313


    Labour 1,004 56.2% -0.4% +13.0% +2.1% -3.8%
    Conservative 423 23.7% -1.9% +15.6% +8.2% +16.0%
    Leigh West Independent ^^ 257 14.4%
    Liberal Democrat 103 5.8% +2.0%


    Surrey Heath
    Frimley Green
    CON GAIN from LD
    Con 896
    LD 877
    Lab 76

    Great results for the Blues - and look at Labour in Falkirk down from 1st to a poor 3rd. Even in Wigan their vote is down!

    That Falkirk vote is truly remarkable. Clearly there was tactical voting going on by Unionists but it is astonishing that in a place like Falkirk that tactical voting has centred on the Tories instead of Labour. Labour are in an even worse place in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK and it is going to make their aspirations to be the largest party, let alone have a majority, extremely difficult.
  • Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    On topic, "right" was last in the lead in March-May - at the height of our relative vaccine rollout success - but has dribbled down since. However, there were larger "wrong" leads over the period of September-December 2020 last year.

    I suspect this is strongly correlated with general Government performance *and* how much we're talking about the EU in the news. So you've got the TCA negotiations last year, the "EU is shit" meme from late Spring this year, and the NI protocol/HGV thing now.

    What the Government needs to do is get a recovery firmly in place and get Brexit and the EU out of the headlines, and then these figures should recover.
  • Mr. Romford, the numbers on that help the Conservatives. Keeps it as a big enough idea to encourage those who don't want the fuss of rejoining voting Conservative, without being popular enough to risk them losing.

    Right now, I think you're right. Brexit is in Peril and all that.

    However, the psychology feels very stereotypically English. A growing sense that this is a mistake coupled with both a reluctance to turn back (too awkward) and louder cries of "onward" from the vanguard.

    My guess is that the "mistake" poll needs to get to about 60:30 (and settle there) before the arch pragmatists in the Conservatives start to scratch their chins.

    No sign of that now, but you can't rule it out forever.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 7,893
    edited October 15



    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    The A330 MRTT was a more mature product at the time but that did't exactly have a happy gestation either. It was also years late and the boom off one of the Aussie ones is still at the bottom of the Atlantic off the coast of Portugal.

    If KC-45 had prevailed in KC-X it would not have been the already semi-proven A330 MRTT as it has a completely different mission system architecture which would have doubtless brought its own set of issues.

    A330 is now back in the hunt for the USAF KC-Y/Bridge Tanker program in the form of the LMXT.
  • I read on Twitter this morning Sebastian Fox announcing that they are about to drop the Day 2 PCR test for LF. The same LF test that most of us have boxes of at home but you will need to pay <£30 for the same test so that Rishi can collect VAT payments.

    With Pox cases rising from the previous stupidly high sustained level is this really the right move? Aside from LF tests being less accurate, people will really really object to the obvious extortion of having to pay dollah for something they already have.

    Typical Tory half baked stupid decision.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,754

    On topic, "right" was last in the lead in March-May - at the height of our relative vaccine rollout success - but has dribbled down since. However, there were larger "wrong" leads over the period of September-December 2020 last year.

    I suspect this is strongly correlated with general Government performance *and* how much we're talking about the EU in the news. So you've got the TCA negotiations last year, the "EU is shit" meme from late Spring this year, and the NI protocol/HGV thing now.

    What the Government needs to do is get a recovery firmly in place and get Brexit and the EU out of the headlines, and then these figures should recover.

    Perhaps the govt might like to deliver one of its proposed big wins from Brexit, like the promised massive injection of cash into the NHS.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    I'm not sure which is more amusing Rochdale - that you think a poll showing a 10% Tory Lead and Keir Starmer having net -44 approval has numbers that "are not good for the Tories" . . . or the way you're such a fan of the Daily Heil now.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192

    tlg86 said:

    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Yep. Did this pilot suddenly think, entirely on his own initiative, to suppress information, or was that effectively encouraged by corporate culture set from the top?
    And was he really the only person in a position to notice that the plane had such a defect? One test pilot? This is just absurd, bordering on embarrassing. The DA should should be ashamed of himself bringing such nonsense.
  • I'm not sure which is more amusing Rochdale - that you think a poll showing a 10% Tory Lead and Keir Starmer having net -44 approval has numbers that "are not good for the Tories" . . . or the way you're such a fan of the Daily Heil now.

    Polls tend to lag behind issues. Brexit support heading south will not help the Tories - dragging such poll leads away with it.

    As for the Mail, remember that I have a Journalism degree. The Heil is a *superb* newspaper. It instinctively knows what its readers want and ladels it out in precise quantities. I personally dislike what is in the ladel but you have to respect the craft.

    The reason why the Mail turning would be bad is that is the house mag for Toryism. Lose them and you lose the mission.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    I am highly sceptical that a pilot made this “callous choice” unilaterally and independently. But he’s the patsy.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164
    Dura_Ace said:



    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    The A330 MRTT was a more mature product at the time but that did't exactly have a happy gestation either. It was also years late and the boom off one of the Aussie ones is still at the bottom of the Atlantic off the coast of Portugal.

    If KC-45 had prevailed in KC-X it would not have been the already semi-proven A330 MRTT as it has a completely different mission system architecture which would have doubtless brought its own set of issues.

    A330 is now back in the hunt for the USAF KC-Y/Bridge Tanker program in the form of the LMXT.
    That's why I said 'base Airbus design'.

    But I fear the KC-46 issues make the A330MRTT issues look trivial. Boeing have really mucked up.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940

    I read on Twitter this morning Sebastian Fox announcing that they are about to drop the Day 2 PCR test for LF. The same LF test that most of us have boxes of at home but you will need to pay £30 for the same test so that Rishi can collect VAT payments.

    With Pox cases rising from the previous stupidly high sustained level is this really the right move? Aside from LF tests being less accurate, people will really really object to the obvious extortion of having to pay dollah for something they already have.

    Typical Tory half baked stupid decision.

    Vaccinated Guernsey arrivals have to take 5 LF tests - which Guernsey is selling at cost - £25 for 5 (and this includes administration costs).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207

    I'm not sure which is more amusing Rochdale - that you think a poll showing a 10% Tory Lead and Keir Starmer having net -44 approval has numbers that "are not good for the Tories" . . . or the way you're such a fan of the Daily Heil now.

    Polls tend to lag behind issues. Brexit support heading south will not help the Tories - dragging such poll leads away with it.

    As for the Mail, remember that I have a Journalism degree. The Heil is a *superb* newspaper. It instinctively knows what its readers want and ladels it out in precise quantities. I personally dislike what is in the ladel but you have to respect the craft.

    The reason why the Mail turning would be bad is that is the house mag for Toryism. Lose them and you lose the mission.
    Except the Heil span on a sixpence when its Editor changed.

    The Heil on Sunday opposed Brexit and once its Editor switched over he took his existing views with him.

    If what you're saying is true then why did the Heil on Sunday back Remain in the first place? Why hasn't Geordie Gregg who's been consistently anti-Boris and anti-government since he took over at the Daily Heil been able to turn the polls?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    IIRC it’s not that they have forgotten how to make them but they came up with a different way - trust the computer. Someone posted a long article on here a year or so ago which went through it in detail
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852

    Mr. Ed, or 'kneeling' as those who speak English might say...

    'Take a knee' is ridiculous. Do people 'take a back' when they lie down?

    The closest is people do 'take a seat' when they sit down.
    But that’s because they are filling a specific physical location
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    edited October 15

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    The 777X is having test flight issues as you mentioned, again it looks like the new technologies in that aircraft are not yet sufficiently developed for commercial flight - but they’ve sold hundreds of them and there’s pressure to get them certified and out of the door.
    Wonder what Emirates have got wind of?

    Emirates president Sir Tim Clark has warned US plane manufacturer Boeing that the Dubai-based carrier will not accept any of the ordered 777X aeroplanes unless they are at 100 percent of what was agreed.

    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/transport/463727-emirates-will-not-accept-less-than-100-from-boeing-777x-order#:~:text=Emirates president Sir Tim Clark,percent of what was agreed.
    The EK order has very tight specifications around aircraft performance, basically holding Boeing to their own marketing department’s numbers - both absolute, and in relation to the competitor Airbus A350, which has also been ordered. The 777X is a lot more expensive to purchase than the 777-300ER, of which Emirates have a more than a hundred. The 777X order is for 115 aircraft, and is the biggest single order by value in Boeing’s history.

    The airlines got their fingers burned with the A380s, the first few of which were 10 tonnes too heavy, and couldn’t carry a full load of pax with all their luggage on the promised 16 or 17 hour flight. The first A380 flights to places like Los Angeles, had a 777 shadow them with pax bags and cargo.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,173

    Good morning, everyone.

    Better question would be support for rejoining.

    Well not really. It would be very surprising if there was a majority for rejoin at any time this decade. There aren't even 50% of people willing to say Brexit was wrong - it's a move of people from "right" to "don't know".

    The better questions are the ones hinted at by Starmer in his conference speech with the slogan "Make Brexit Work". Is the government messing up Brexit? Would Labour do a better job with it?

    That's the question that Labour need to target.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    I am highly sceptical that a pilot made this “callous choice” unilaterally and independently. But he’s the patsy.
    He’s a lot more than “A Pilot”. He was the head of the certification program for the 737 Max.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    I am highly sceptical that a pilot made this “callous choice” unilaterally and independently. But he’s the patsy.
    He’s a lot more than “A Pilot”. He was the head of the certification program for the 737 Max.
    That's very different then.

    That's like referring to the Prime Minister as "an MP".
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    The 777X is having test flight issues as you mentioned, again it looks like the new technologies in that aircraft are not yet sufficiently developed for commercial flight - but they’ve sold hundreds of them and there’s pressure to get them certified and out of the door.
    Wonder what Emirates have got wind of?

    Emirates president Sir Tim Clark has warned US plane manufacturer Boeing that the Dubai-based carrier will not accept any of the ordered 777X aeroplanes unless they are at 100 percent of what was agreed.

    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/transport/463727-emirates-will-not-accept-less-than-100-from-boeing-777x-order#:~:text=Emirates president Sir Tim Clark,percent of what was agreed.
    The EK order has very tight specifications around aircraft performance, basically holding Boeing to their own marketing department’s numbers - both absolute, and in relation to the competitor Airbus A350, which has also been ordered. The 777X is a lot more expensive to purchase than the 777-300ER, of which Emirates have a more than a hundred. The 777X order is for 115 aircraft, and is the biggest single order by value in Boeing’s history.

    The airlines got their fingers burned with the A380s, the first few of which were 10 tonnes too heavy, and couldn’t carry a full load of pax with all their luggage on the promised 16 or 17 hour flight. The first A380 flights to places like Los Angeles, had a 777 shadow them with pax bags and cargo.
    As Sir Tim Clark says "we expect 100% performance just as Boeing expect 100% payment".
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    Taz said:

    Mr. Above, nope.

    I don't mind most Americanisms. A few jar. 'Could care less' is particularly rubbish (I'm currently replaying Shadow Hearts: Covenant, which is over a decade and a half old, and is excellent, despite being the first place I heard that expression).

    ‘Lucked out’ for me. Just sounds like out of luck, but that’s the opposite of what it means.
    I'm pissed about that, they're annoyed not drunk !!!!
    Wearing suspenders at work?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    I'm not sure which is more amusing Rochdale - that you think a poll showing a 10% Tory Lead and Keir Starmer having net -44 approval has numbers that "are not good for the Tories" . . . or the way you're such a fan of the Daily Heil now.

    Mr Smithson will always find a ray of sunshine even tho his party is pretty much a shambles, living on by election results, and Labour being unelectable because of Scotland.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,164
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    IIRC it’s not that they have forgotten how to make them but they came up with a different way - trust the computer. Someone posted a long article on here a year or so ago which went through it in detail
    There is that, but 'Trust the computer' doesn't lead to debris being left in fuel tanks of new aircraft:

    https://www.flightglobal.com/programmes/boeing-orders-737-max-inspections-after-fuel-tank-fod-find/136819.article

    That's a cultural thing, e.g. too few inspectors, and allowing workers to inspect and verify their own work.

    Boeing has cut everything too much to the bone. Design, testing, and construction.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Mr. Above, nope.

    I don't mind most Americanisms. A few jar. 'Could care less' is particularly rubbish (I'm currently replaying Shadow Hearts: Covenant, which is over a decade and a half old, and is excellent, despite being the first place I heard that expression).

    ‘Lucked out’ for me. Just sounds like out of luck, but that’s the opposite of what it means.
    I'm pissed about that, they're annoyed not drunk !!!!
    Wearing suspenders at work?
    Or wearing a fanny pack?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    I am highly sceptical that a pilot made this “callous choice” unilaterally and independently. But he’s the patsy.
    He’s a lot more than “A Pilot”. He was the head of the certification program for the 737 Max.
    That's very different then.

    That's like referring to the Prime Minister as "an MP".
    He was the most senior person on whom the prosecutors could directly pin blame. A lot of people are trying to minimise his role in the project, as they want to see the more senior managers, board members, held personally accountable.

    He had a big salary and would been well aware of the possible outcome of his actions, in leaving pilots unaware of what they aircraft was doing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    The 777X is having test flight issues as you mentioned, again it looks like the new technologies in that aircraft are not yet sufficiently developed for commercial flight - but they’ve sold hundreds of them and there’s pressure to get them certified and out of the door.
    Wonder what Emirates have got wind of?

    Emirates president Sir Tim Clark has warned US plane manufacturer Boeing that the Dubai-based carrier will not accept any of the ordered 777X aeroplanes unless they are at 100 percent of what was agreed.

    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/transport/463727-emirates-will-not-accept-less-than-100-from-boeing-777x-order#:~:text=Emirates president Sir Tim Clark,percent of what was agreed.
    The EK order has very tight specifications around aircraft performance, basically holding Boeing to their own marketing department’s numbers - both absolute, and in relation to the competitor Airbus A350, which has also been ordered. The 777X is a lot more expensive to purchase than the 777-300ER, of which Emirates have a more than a hundred. The 777X order is for 115 aircraft, and is the biggest single order by value in Boeing’s history.

    The airlines got their fingers burned with the A380s, the first few of which were 10 tonnes too heavy, and couldn’t carry a full load of pax with all their luggage on the promised 16 or 17 hour flight. The first A380 flights to places like Los Angeles, had a 777 shadow them with pax bags and cargo.
    As Sir Tim Clark says "we expect 100% performance just as Boeing expect 100% payment".
    :D

    Not heard that line before, brilliant!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,407
    Brexit was the wrong choice and eventually that will be the settled view of the British public, because the public tend to get things right eventually. End of story.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,019
    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    IIRC it’s not that they have forgotten how to make them but they came up with a different way - trust the computer. Someone posted a long article on here a year or so ago which went through it in detail
    Boeing did the classic C-suite thing of declaring that nearly everything "isn't our core business"

    They decided that they would design planes, buy chunks of planes from 3rd party interrogators who would in turn contract out work etc etc. Yes, this is how much of aerospace works - but they took it to new heights. Or depths depending on your point of view.

    This results in a couple of things - the real engineers tend to leave your company, to work for the 3rd parties you are contracting with. You end up losing a lot of real knowledge.

    C-suite thought that they were outsourcing risk - that they can specific a chunk of plane, and if it doesn't do what it says on the tin, they can sue the contractors. But if the design is shit.. and the big lesson from 2008 is that you can't put risk in a box and sell it to people. It always finds it's way home.

    So, you've lost your design skills, control of risk and then you have to integrate chunks of plane and do the final testing. Ah, but we can save money there......
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    edited October 15
    Broken sleazy Conservatives on the slide:

    https://twitter.com/falkirkcouncil/status/1448786323893100547

    Crushing SNP win.

    I would have predicted with that many Lab voters the Cons would have won on preferences but apparently not. Interesting to see how the votes broke.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    darkage said:

    Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.

    Not a chance in hell.

    It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.

    Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.

    England will never again be a part of the EU.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    darkage said:

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


    That’s exactly the point.

    We have the power to change the rules. Politicians do not have to, but if enough people vote against them because of it they lose their seats. That *is* sovereignty
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681

    Mr. Romford, the numbers on that help the Conservatives. Keeps it as a big enough idea to encourage those who don't want the fuss of rejoining voting Conservative, without being popular enough to risk them losing.

    Hello @Morris_Dancer yes, taking the knee is a bit of a stupid phrase, mind you I keep getting pulled up by my wife on British expressions which sound totally nonsense to her
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,852
    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    I am highly sceptical that a pilot made this “callous choice” unilaterally and independently. But he’s the patsy.
    He’s a lot more than “A Pilot”. He was the head of the certification program for the 737 Max.
    Fair enough
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    darkage said:

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


    All EU law and regulation was transferred into domestic law at the time of Brexit (other than the treaties etc obvs). It was the only way it could be done. Politicians now have the ability to change it but they still require the political will and desire to do so.

    Its really not hard to anticipate the outrage of NIMBYs if such "protections" were removed. Any subordinate legislation seeking to do so will inevitably be judicially reviewed with learned Judges opining on whether the Minister took all the relevant factors into account etc. It means years of grief and effort with the risk of disgruntled voters at the end of it.

    The inertia and obstruction in our planning system really cannot be underestimated but I have to say my recent trip to Oxford and trip around London reminded me that population density in the southern part of the country is intense. The volume of traffic on the roads is jaw dropping to a Scot like me as is the lack of green space. It may be that nitrates and foul water disposal are just indicators that capacity has been reached.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    The 777X is having test flight issues as you mentioned, again it looks like the new technologies in that aircraft are not yet sufficiently developed for commercial flight - but they’ve sold hundreds of them and there’s pressure to get them certified and out of the door.
    Wonder what Emirates have got wind of?

    Emirates president Sir Tim Clark has warned US plane manufacturer Boeing that the Dubai-based carrier will not accept any of the ordered 777X aeroplanes unless they are at 100 percent of what was agreed.

    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/transport/463727-emirates-will-not-accept-less-than-100-from-boeing-777x-order#:~:text=Emirates president Sir Tim Clark,percent of what was agreed.
    The EK order has very tight specifications around aircraft performance, basically holding Boeing to their own marketing department’s numbers - both absolute, and in relation to the competitor Airbus A350, which has also been ordered. The 777X is a lot more expensive to purchase than the 777-300ER, of which Emirates have a more than a hundred. The 777X order is for 115 aircraft, and is the biggest single order by value in Boeing’s history.

    The airlines got their fingers burned with the A380s, the first few of which were 10 tonnes too heavy, and couldn’t carry a full load of pax with all their luggage on the promised 16 or 17 hour flight. The first A380 flights to places like Los Angeles, had a 777 shadow them with pax bags and cargo.
    As Sir Tim Clark says "we expect 100% performance just as Boeing expect 100% payment".
    :D

    Not heard that line before, brilliant!
    Morning Sandpit, do your family hail from a little little village on Devon/ Dorset borders by any chance?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Charles said:

    Taz said:

    Mr. Above, nope.

    I don't mind most Americanisms. A few jar. 'Could care less' is particularly rubbish (I'm currently replaying Shadow Hearts: Covenant, which is over a decade and a half old, and is excellent, despite being the first place I heard that expression).

    ‘Lucked out’ for me. Just sounds like out of luck, but that’s the opposite of what it means.
    I'm pissed about that, they're annoyed not drunk !!!!
    Wearing suspenders at work?
    I remember Cilla Black telling a good story to an American audience about how she got a bang in the lift, meaning a static shock.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    darkage said:

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


    EU legislation was transposed at a point in time, into UK domestic legislation. It’s now up to Parliament to amend it as they see fit, and if we don’t like what they do we can elect another Parliament - in contrast to whatever is the new, more restrictive EU legislation, proposed by unelected bureaucrats and about which we can do nothing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    edited October 15

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/14/boeing-pilot-737-max-indictment-faa

    A Boeing pilot involved in testing the 737 Max jetliner was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on charges of deceiving safety regulators who were evaluating the plane, which was later involved in two deadly crashes.

    Prosecutors said that because of Forkner’s “alleged deception”, the system was not mentioned in key FAA documents, pilot manuals or pilot-training material supplied to airlines.

    Chad Meacham, acting US attorney for the northern district of Texas, said Forkner had tried to save Boeing money by withholding “critical information” from regulators. “His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch, lacking information about certain 737 Max flight controls,” Meacham said in a statement.

    Chicago-based Boeing agreed to a $2.5bn settlement to end a justice department criminal investigation into the company’s actions. Boeing said in the settlement last year that employees had misled regulators about the safety of the Max. The settlement included a fine, money for airlines that bought the plane and compensation for families of the passengers who died in the crashes.


    Hmmm, not impressed by this. $2.5bn is nothing for Boeing. The top brass should be on trial too.

    Think that's bad? The prosecutor who dealt with this case has changed jobs.

    Guess where she's gone.

    I bet you can't.

    Go on have a go

    ...

    The team that led the defence of Boeing!

    https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/lead-boeing-prosecutor-joins-boeing-corporate-criminal-defense-firm-kirkland-ellis/

    The whole thing is utterly corrupt. Boeing got away with a fine that is little more than a slap on the wrist; senior corporate figures are not being prosecuted, and instead someone low-down the chain is being the fall guy.
    That’s utterly appalling.
    To be cynical, any Boeing fine big enough to hurt would need to be compensated by a hidden subsidy NASA or Pentagon research contract, as per usual practice.
    Except Boeing is repeatedly failing on such projects. The Boeing Starliner problems are at least partially understandable: space is hard (*). Boeing's problem is that the rot has migrated down into their bread-and-butter. Not just with the 737 Max; their 777X was due to be delivered in 2020; it is now expected in 2024, for reasons including " The FAA cited a serious test flight incident involving an "uncommanded pitch event" and a lack of "design maturity"."

    Yep, they've got a design that can have uncommanded pitch events. After the 737 Max debacle.

    Then there are their military contracts. Remember the hot mess from 13/14 years ago when the USAF chose an Airbus/NG refuelling tanker instead of a Boeing one? The deal was redone, on terms highly favourable to the Boeing bid, and Boeing won. Their winning bid, the KC-46, is a steaming pile of poo. At least four years late, with leaks, debris being found in fuel tanks, and lots of other issues. Meanwhile the base Airbus design is fairly happily in service with multiple countries.

    Planes are Boeing's bread-and-butter. And they've forgotten how to make them.

    (*) Though I'd argue not *that* hard.
    The 777X is having test flight issues as you mentioned, again it looks like the new technologies in that aircraft are not yet sufficiently developed for commercial flight - but they’ve sold hundreds of them and there’s pressure to get them certified and out of the door.
    Wonder what Emirates have got wind of?

    Emirates president Sir Tim Clark has warned US plane manufacturer Boeing that the Dubai-based carrier will not accept any of the ordered 777X aeroplanes unless they are at 100 percent of what was agreed.

    https://www.arabianbusiness.com/transport/463727-emirates-will-not-accept-less-than-100-from-boeing-777x-order#:~:text=Emirates president Sir Tim Clark,percent of what was agreed.
    The EK order has very tight specifications around aircraft performance, basically holding Boeing to their own marketing department’s numbers - both absolute, and in relation to the competitor Airbus A350, which has also been ordered. The 777X is a lot more expensive to purchase than the 777-300ER, of which Emirates have a more than a hundred. The 777X order is for 115 aircraft, and is the biggest single order by value in Boeing’s history.

    The airlines got their fingers burned with the A380s, the first few of which were 10 tonnes too heavy, and couldn’t carry a full load of pax with all their luggage on the promised 16 or 17 hour flight. The first A380 flights to places like Los Angeles, had a 777 shadow them with pax bags and cargo.
    As Sir Tim Clark says "we expect 100% performance just as Boeing expect 100% payment".
    :D

    Not heard that line before, brilliant!
    Morning Sandpit, do your family hail from a little little village on Devon/ Dorset borders by any chance?
    Good morning. Nope, sorry. Was born in Hertfordshire, grew up on the Hants/Surrey/Berkshire border, lived for a few years in Salisbury and have spent most of the last decade and a half in Dubai.

    Is there a family of Sandpits, in Devon and Dorset?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    edited October 15
    Mr. Ed, but surely she likes wonderful British slang such as skiving, flukey, kecks, etc?

    Edited extra bit: as an aside, re-reading bits of a medieval history and was pleased to see 'sciving' used in a quote from the time.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681

    Mr. Ed, but surely she likes wonderful British slang such as skiving, flukey, kecks, etc?

    Edited extra bit: as an aside, re-reading bits of a medieval history and was pleased to see 'sciving' used in a quote from the time.

    Mmmmm, not really Morris.......
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    darkage said:

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


    Brexit wasn't promoted as a way of escaping from such rules.

    Brexit was promoted as that the rules would be under the control of the people we elect.

    If you want that rule gone, you can elect politicians promising to repeal that rule. You couldn't in the EU.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,925
    I bumped into a friend yesterday who told me he had been waiting several weeks for 'a bridge' and he'd just been to the dentist and he'd been told there was a further delay because it was 'coming from Europe'.

    He was mightily pissed off and couldn't understand why it was 'coming from Europe'. I had no idea but it struck me how inextricably intertwined we are with our neighbours and how difficult it's going to be to separate ourselves.Those who voted leave did so for the most superficial of reasons and as the weeks and months pass even the most parochial of Leavers who have never taken a step out of Hartlepool are going to start noticing.


  • darkagedarkage Posts: 927
    Charles said:

    darkage said:

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


    That’s exactly the point.

    We have the power to change the rules. Politicians do not have to, but if enough people vote against them because of it they lose their seats. That *is* sovereignty
    But the rules could always have been changed. There were always ways around such problems. But the choice taken over and over again was to avoid making difficult decisions, and just blame 'europe' without properly engaging with it.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 493
    It's over, basically. With the conservatives winning public opinion despite voters turning against Brexit, becoming the default anti-SNP party in Scotland, winning a council seat mid-term off the Lib Dems in the middle of the blue wall in Surrey, we might as well not bother with multi-party politics in England anymore. We are becoming Japan, albeit one with a Hokkaido independence party. Let the politics take place within the permanent governing party. We can sit back and watch occasional palace coups engineered in the 1922 committee, and do away with the cost, hassle and devastating false hope created by elections.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,681
    Charles said:

    darkage said:

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


    That’s exactly the point.

    We have the power to change the rules. Politicians do not have to, but if enough people vote against them because of it they lose their seats. That *is* sovereignty
    I would imagine, as with most things, it will change gradually over the years. It is a bit unrealistic to expect a "Year Zero" approach with such things.
  • darkage said:

    Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled. A few people will be fuming; but most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.

    Not a chance in hell.

    It can't be cancelled, it's happened. And it won't be reversed either.

    Neither politicians nor the public are going to want to go through that again, and even if we did have a collective reversal the French would say non.

    England will never again be a part of the EU.
    You are an absolutist so of course you think that. Most people are more pragmatic than you. Whilst I agree that we won't rejoin any time soon, I do think that a dismantling of the bureaucracy and red tape is likely. Not the arbitrary EU surrender you keep fantasising about either, a recognition that our current full alignment means that we can drop the 3rd party nonsense and kick the divergence can a long way down the road.

    You don't need to post you chest puffed Ian Paisley impression, we know, we know...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,192
    Alistair said:

    Broken sleazy Conservatives on the slide:

    https://twitter.com/falkirkcouncil/status/1448786323893100547

    Crushing SNP win.

    I would have predicted with that many Lab voters the Cons would have won on preferences but apparently not. Interesting to see how the votes broke.

    I have to go to Falkirk Sheriff Court on occasion, or at least I did before most appearances were on screen. It is, to put it kindly, a dump, deeply depressed like so much of central Scotland with a High Street of empty shops and full of drug addicts. I find the Tory performance there astonishing and Labour's even more so in a less good way.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,930
    darkage said:

    Charles said:

    darkage said:

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


    That’s exactly the point.

    We have the power to change the rules. Politicians do not have to, but if enough people vote against them because of it they lose their seats. That *is* sovereignty
    But the rules could always have been changed. There were always ways around such problems. But the choice taken over and over again was to avoid making difficult decisions, and just blame 'europe' without properly engaging with it.
    Well now, thanks to Brexit, those in charge can’t do that any more. If we don’t like what they do, we can vote them out and put another lot in.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,207
    darkage said:

    Charles said:

    darkage said:

    Morning all from day 6 of my 7 day bender business trip. These numbers are not good for the Tories, and the move away from people thinking Brexit has been a success is only going to continue.

    Brexit hasn't worked / isn't working / won't work with regards to the impossible promises made. The deeper we get into Christmas - if the now universally expected shortages do appear - the worse the polling will get.

    No, we aren't about to rejoin or even have a party saying so. This is "Make Brexit Work" as Starmer put it and we will increasingly see government minister vs the world scenes as we saw the other week with Zahawi on Question Time.

    We know the Tory tactics. Deny there is an issue. Insist the issue is someone else's fault. Say the issue was always the plan so celebrate getting what you voted for. All we need is one Daily Mail "shock expose" comparing and contrasting the UK's "Christmas Hell" vs EU full shelves for this to move south quickly.

    Final observation. All of this is avoidable. Our standards are the EU standards are our standards. We have imposed this hell for the theoretical right to diverge at some point in the future. Whilst signing deals with countries that maintain our complete alignment. The Mail headlines "What was the point???" at the end of this will kill them.

    I was involved in some discussions with planning lawyers last week. One issue that has arisen in the south east is the effect of the habitats directive (and consequential domestic legislation) on housebuilding. Essentially, there is an embargo on any housebuilding in parts of the region due to worries about waste water associated with new development contributing to nitrates (and other forms of pollution) discharging in to water bodies which were originally designated as European sites. The amount of actual pollution associated with housebuilding is minimal and the effect is a fraction of the pollution that arises from agriculture. However, the wording of the habitats regulations are that a 'likely significant effect' must be ruled out or effectively mitigated before any development can go ahead. This is not the case, so there are no more planning permissions being granted in the areas affected. No more housing then, in the areas where housing is most desperately needed. If a Council or planning Inspector grants permission anyway, the decision will be overturned in the high court.

    The point here is that Brexit was originally promoted as a way of escaping from such absurd rules but the rules are still here. They have been transposed in to domestic legislation and prevail. Politicians cannot blame the EU any more, they just do nothing at all about them. So much for sovereignty.


    That’s exactly the point.

    We have the power to change the rules. Politicians do not have to, but if enough people vote against them because of it they lose their seats. That *is* sovereignty
    But the rules could always have been changed. There were always ways around such problems. But the choice taken over and over again was to avoid making difficult decisions, and just blame 'europe' without properly engaging with it.
    The rules couldn't be changed in the EU. Once an EU ratchet was turned there was no realistic way of reversing it.

    Parliament couldn't reverse EU rules unilaterally and EU democracy is a sham.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,323
    Mr. Ed, next you'll be saying she doesn't like morris dancing.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,940
    darkage said:

    Regarding Brexit, I think it is possible that it will end up getting cancelled.

    It can't be "cancelled" - we'd have to renegotiate entry under new terms - and the EU may be in no mood to see us back in, certainly not in the short term.
This discussion has been closed.