This site should report naught but the Scottish subsample.
SNP 34, Con 27, Lab 24, LD 8, UKIP 3, Greens 3
SNP down 3% on the 2017 general election on that subsample
You have to remember that their little green helpers will probably only stand in a token seat or 2 at a GE.
What about Ruth's little Kipper helpers? Yougov subsamples aside, are they now completely assimilated into the racist fruitcake wing of the SCons?
Anyone that supports the SNP should look at it's pretty disgusting historical of fascist sympathy record before it calls anyone racists. As I have often said, the clue is in the name
A new entry in the field of barely informed regurgitators. You've got several thousand posts to go before you catch up with those lads.
The Trump administration is planning to cut all remaining US funding for the main UN programme for Palestinian refugees, with potentially devastating impacts, and is lobbying other countries to follow suit.
The threat emerged days after the US announced it was withdrawing $200mfrom its main development agency, USAid, for programmes based largely in Gaza where they help tens of thousands of people.
Whilst it is not obvious why the US is and has been spending so many of its tax dollars on people who insist that they hate them this will be both devastating and destabilising unless someone picks up the slack and the Palestinians seem to have relatively few friends in the Arab world.
I would say there's a non-trivial risk this will cause a full blown war between Israel and the Palestinians as the Palestinians in desperation try to take water and housing by force.
Mr. B, plenty of animals exist that are half the size of a human, or smaller.
The clear implication was that they are 1/1000th of full size.
Exist, sure - but full human level cognition in an organism of that size would require a far more efficient brain structure. Perhaps if he had bird brain...
Kanye West is who we are talking about here.
self-made multi millionaire in a fantastically competitive field but yeah let’s all all humble-brag about our A levels in Home Economics to sooth our fragile egos - I got shit A levels and a DPhil in complex systems but that doesn’t mean I feel smarter than Kanye
This is one of the best and maddest posts on PB I've ever read.
This site should report naught but the Scottish subsample.
SNP 34, Con 27, Lab 24, LD 8, UKIP 3, Greens 3
SNP down 3% on the 2017 general election on that subsample
You have to remember that their little green helpers will probably only stand in a token seat or 2 at a GE.
What about Ruth's little Kipper helpers? Yougov subsamples aside, are they now completely assimilated into the racist fruitcake wing of the SCons?
Anyone that supports the SNP should look at it's pretty disgusting historical of fascist sympathy record before it calls anyone racists. As I have often said, the clue is in the name
A new entry in the field of barely informed regurgitators. You've got several thousand posts to go before you catch up with those lads.
There is nothing "barely informed" about the fact that the SNP was a hotbed of fascist sympathisers in the 1930s and later. You can deny it as much as you like, but it will not change the historical facts. As I say, the clue is in the name. There is nothing pleasant or admirable about nationalism, it is a hateful creed that has nothing to commend it. If you mix socialism with nationalism, you only need to throw in a bit of ant-Semitism and guess what you get?
Mr. Sandpit, cheers for that. Bit unlucky for Ericsson.
Big shunt, but he walked away. h ttps://twitter.com/SkySportsF1/status/1035514811231219712
Lucky man.
He'll be glad of that Halo...
Without it he'd have had a different sort of halo!
Interesting that there was so much harrumphing initially about the halo being fitted - for aesthetic reasons even - but it now seems to have saved two lives already this season....
Jackie Stewart's comments on it are worth reading:
It is also perhaps worth remembering it would very possibly have saved Bianchi and Senna (as would the now standard wheel tethers in the latter case).
Having seen* the footage of the Bianchi Crash, I'm not sure the halo would have saved him, it's a terrifyingly brutal impact. Doesn't mean the halo is a bad idea though.
* wish i hadn't.
I think Bianchi went at an angle into the sloping rear of the digger, hard enough to lift the digger up, slew it around, and destroy anything on the car about head level. I find it hard to believe the halo would have been able to prevent grievous injury in that case; there was just too much energy at head level.
That's why I was wondering if the FIA had modelled it.
Some crashes might just be unsurvivable, whatever we do. Prevention might be a better start; there had been several cases where cars had nearly hit (or hit) rescue vehicles on track, and these were ignored.
It's just not a fair competition. Who could possibly be as embarrassing as Salmond?
Units of embarrassment would need to be worked out.
eg
Cabinet minister wanking on work computer + cabinet minister groping journos + minister who resigned after texting dick pics + minister who resigned after sending thousands of s&m texts = one former FM accused of sexual harassment
MSP suspended & expelled for inappropriate behaviour = 20 plus racist, misogynist, far right, homophobic, bigoted councillors still in in place
MP who'd resigned as a minister over previous sexting found to have sexted a 19 year old job candidate = one MP who stood down from her party after being accused of (groundless) financial irregularities
Of course some filters would have applied for suspended, resigned, stood down, expelled from party, sent to diversity training etc. Any word how many Tory elected 'members' have stood down or been suspended from their party due to their shenanigans?
LOL.
You're cheating by including those plonkers in Westminster. In Scotland we have a bunch of dinosaurs (with due apologies to any dinosauria actually reading about the unfair stereotyping) in local government that no one has ever heard of against a former First Minister who won an absolute majority when that was not supposed to be possible and damn near won an Independence Referendum without even the semblance of a coherent plan for independence and who has been a fixture on our screens and talk shows for more than 20 years. Not even close.
And whilst replying I completely agree with your reply to Nigel_Foremain. The modern SNP is a social democratic party whose main objective I profoundly disagree with but to suggest that there is any taint on it because of what some nutters did or didn't do 70 years ago is ridiculous. It's like those who criticise the Daily Mail for having supported fascism in the 1930s as opposed to just being bigoted crap.
This site should report naught but the Scottish subsample.
SNP 34, Con 27, Lab 24, LD 8, UKIP 3, Greens 3
SNP down 3% on the 2017 general election on that subsample
You have to remember that their little green helpers will probably only stand in a token seat or 2 at a GE.
What about Ruth's little Kipper helpers? Yougov subsamples aside, are they now completely assimilated into the racist fruitcake wing of the SCons?
Anyone that supports the SNP should look at it's pretty disgusting historical of fascist sympathy record before it calls anyone racists. As I have often said, the clue is in the name
A new entry in the field of barely informed regurgitators. You've got several thousand posts to go before you catch up with those lads.
There is nothing "barely informed" about the fact that the SNP was a hotbed of fascist sympathisers in the 1930s and later. You can deny it as much as you like, but it will not change the historical facts...
So what ? Most political parties espoused pretty vile views back in the 1930s judged by today's standards, and no politician active back then is even alive now.
Trouble is that when Pollard attacks Corbyn for being Corbyn, he devalues the charge of antisemitism and makes it easier for Corbynistas to write that off as yet another smear from the Corbyn-hating Pollard.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers for that. Bit unlucky for Ericsson.
Big shunt, but he walked away. h ttps://twitter.com/SkySportsF1/status/1035514811231219712
Lucky man.
He'll be glad of that Halo...
Without it he'd have had a different sort of halo!
Interesting that there was so much harrumphing initially about the halo being fitted - for aesthetic reasons even - but it now seems to have saved two lives already this season....
Jackie Stewart's comments on it are worth reading:
It is also perhaps worth remembering it would very possibly have saved Bianchi and Senna (as would the now standard wheel tethers in the latter case).
Having seen* the footage of the Bianchi Crash, I'm not sure the halo would have saved him, it's a terrifyingly brutal impact. Doesn't mean the halo is a bad idea though.
* wish i hadn't.
I think Bianchi went at an angle into the sloping rear of the digger, hard enough to lift the digger up, slew it around, and destroy anything on the car about head level. I find it hard to believe the halo would have been able to prevent grievous injury in that case; there was just too much energy at head level.
That's why I was wondering if the FIA had modelled it.
Some crashes might just be unsurvivable, whatever we do. Prevention might be a better start; there had been several cases where cars had nearly hit (or hit) rescue vehicles on track, and these were ignored.
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUUUKuo8hXs
I think Bianchi (and Senna) were just horrible freak accidents, nothing could practically have been done to avoid the fatal impact. Thankfully the video I saw of Bianchi stopped just before the hit, that he wasn’t killed instantly was a miracle given the accident dynamics.
The Trump administration is planning to cut all remaining US funding for the main UN programme for Palestinian refugees, with potentially devastating impacts, and is lobbying other countries to follow suit.
The threat emerged days after the US announced it was withdrawing $200mfrom its main development agency, USAid, for programmes based largely in Gaza where they help tens of thousands of people.
Whilst it is not obvious why the US is and has been spending so many of its tax dollars on people who insist that they hate them this will be both devastating and destabilising unless someone picks up the slack and the Palestinians seem to have relatively few friends in the Arab world.
I would say there's a non-trivial risk this will cause a full blown war between Israel and the Palestinians as the Palestinians in desperation try to take water and housing by force.
Could easily drag in Egypt and Jordan as well.
Yep, deeply destabilising. There was some idea of an artificial island being built opposite Gaza with desalination plants but that is probably decades away, even without the help of TfL.
I am sure that it was obvious to someone why Moeen was the man to drop when the whole team were playing badly but its looking a less than inspired decision at the moment.
The Trump administration is planning to cut all remaining US funding for the main UN programme for Palestinian refugees, with potentially devastating impacts, and is lobbying other countries to follow suit.
The threat emerged days after the US announced it was withdrawing $200mfrom its main development agency, USAid, for programmes based largely in Gaza where they help tens of thousands of people.
Whilst it is not obvious why the US is and has been spending so many of its tax dollars on people who insist that they hate them this will be both devastating and destabilising unless someone picks up the slack and the Palestinians seem to have relatively few friends in the Arab world.
I would say there's a non-trivial risk this will cause a full blown war between Israel and the Palestinians as the Palestinians in desperation try to take water and housing by force.
Could easily drag in Egypt and Jordan as well.
Well considering Egypt and Jordan claimed the Palestinian land as their own until 67 why shouldn't they be the ones who pay to support the Palestinians?
If Palestinians want American taxdollars it seems reasonable to request that the Palestinians become friendly with America. If they're not going to then they should ask those who they are friendly with to support them.
PS if Egypt and Jordan were footing the bill for the Palestinians I suspect a compromise with Israel that achieved peace would have been secured already.
I am sure that it was obvious to someone why Moeen was the man to drop when the whole team were playing badly but its looking a less than inspired decision at the moment.
When he's good, he's very good - but dropping him and allowing him to rediscover form seems to have worked out pretty well.
England's electoral problems remain the top three positions. Clearly Jennings is done, but Cook looks at the very fag end of his career, and Root is just not a number three, particularly when he has to come in so early every innings. If we had a decent opening pair, we'd look quite a useful side.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job. He doesn't show leadership.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
This site should report naught but the Scottish subsample.
SNP 34, Con 27, Lab 24, LD 8, UKIP 3, Greens 3
SNP down 3% on the 2017 general election on that subsample
You have to remember that their little green helpers will probably only stand in a token seat or 2 at a GE.
What about Ruth's little Kipper helpers? Yougov subsamples aside, are they now completely assimilated into the racist fruitcake wing of the SCons?
Anyone that supports the SNP should look at it's pretty disgusting historical of fascist sympathy record before it calls anyone racists. As I have often said, the clue is in the name
A new entry in the field of barely informed regurgitators. You've got several thousand posts to go before you catch up with those lads.
There is nothing "barely informed" about the fact that the SNP was a hotbed of fascist sympathisers in the 1930s and later. You can deny it as much as you like, but it will not change the historical facts. As I say, the clue is in the name. There is nothing pleasant or admirable about nationalism, it is a hateful creed that has nothing to commend it. If you mix socialism with nationalism, you only need to throw in a bit of ant-Semitism and guess what you get?
Och, could you not bring up something new instead of the same old shite? I'll stick with barely informed, and remind you which side of the 'national' question in Scotland UKIP, BNP, EDL, SDL, Orange Order, NF and sundry holocaust deniers reside on now.
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
Corbyn could have halted immediately the personal campaign against FF in his CLP and changed his mind on the Labour definition on AS. Both/either of those would have shown a willingness to maintain Labour's coalition.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
These modern day cricketers can’t bat can they....
The indian batsmen can bat, the indian bowlers can bowl but can't bat. The english batsmen can't bat or bowl, but the english bowlers can both bat and bowl(*).
*Well except Jimmy and Stu, but they can both bowl very well indeed.
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
Corbyn could have halted immediately the personal campaign against FF in his CLP and changed his mind on the Labour definition on AS. Both/either of those would have shown a willingness to maintain Labour's coalition.
Indeed and @AlastairMeeks could have solved the Brexit crisis by voting for Brexit but that just wasn't something that he was going to do now, was it? Because he really, really doesn't believe in Brexit.
There is your problem with Jezza and anti-semitism right there.
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
Corbyn could have halted immediately the personal campaign against FF in his CLP and changed his mind on the Labour definition on AS. Both/either of those would have shown a willingness to maintain Labour's coalition.
Indeed and @AlastairMeeks could have solved the Brexit crisis by voting for Brexit but that just wasn't something that he was going to do now, was it? Because he really, really doesn't believe in Brexit.
There is your problem with Jezza and anti-semitism right there.
Corbyn really, really doesn't believe in tackling anti-semitism?
A senior Justice Department lawyer says a former British spy told him at a breakfast meeting two years ago that Russian intelligence believed it had Donald Trump “over a barrel,” according to multiple people familiar with the encounter.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
Yes, something in that, but basically he's someone who tries to work out everything from first principles, on his own (as a Minister I'm told he used to lock himself away to study an issue, and emerge with a fully-formed plan from which he would rarely want to deviate). The result is unpredictable and un-aligned with any wing of any party. He's extremely bright, but not a team player and doesn't do lazy compromise.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
Corbyn could have halted immediately the personal campaign against FF in his CLP and changed his mind on the Labour definition on AS. Both/either of those would have shown a willingness to maintain Labour's coalition.
Indeed and @AlastairMeeks could have solved the Brexit crisis by voting for Brexit but that just wasn't something that he was going to do now, was it? Because he really, really doesn't believe in Brexit.
There is your problem with Jezza and anti-semitism right there.
Corbyn really, really doesn't believe in tackling anti-semitism?
He would need to understand what it is to tackle it. As understanding it is conflicts with his views, the computer says "No".
What exactly is Frank Field's position in Labour? I never good work out if he was a principled left winger (anti-EU) or well on the right (welfare reform). I don't think he is exactly a Blairite, he seems perhaps to have more in common with the tradition of Peter Shore.
It's a shame Corbyn couldn't keep FF on board. He could have intervened in the CLP and solved it in an instant, but didn't. It stuff like that underlines that Corbyn is not the man for the job.
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
FF left because of Lab's anti-semitism. How the F&&k could Corbyn have kept him on board in that light?
Corbyn could have halted immediately the personal campaign against FF in his CLP and changed his mind on the Labour definition on AS. Both/either of those would have shown a willingness to maintain Labour's coalition.
Indeed and @AlastairMeeks could have solved the Brexit crisis by voting for Brexit but that just wasn't something that he was going to do now, was it? Because he really, really doesn't believe in Brexit.
There is your problem with Jezza and anti-semitism right there.
Corbyn really, really doesn't believe in tackling anti-semitism?
I think all he really likes is touring round, and being mooned over by crowds of people who think he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Witness his churlish and petulant response to any question ever posed by a journalist, and lack of involvement in any internal party matter, and lack of involvement in detailed policy-setting.
A senior Justice Department lawyer says a former British spy told him at a breakfast meeting two years ago that Russian intelligence believed it had Donald Trump “over a barrel,” according to multiple people familiar with the encounter.
So somebody told somebody that someone else had something that had Trump over a barrel. That's what passes as news these days, is it?
A senior Justice Department lawyer says a former British spy told him at a breakfast meeting two years ago that Russian intelligence believed it had Donald Trump “over a barrel,” according to multiple people familiar with the encounter.
I dislike Trump intensely, but this sort of story just plays into his hands. Someone claims her was told by someone else that Trump was a naughty boy. It's not exactly direct evidence; and direct evidence is needed.
A senior Justice Department lawyer says a former British spy told him at a breakfast meeting two years ago that Russian intelligence believed it had Donald Trump “over a barrel,” according to multiple people familiar with the encounter.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
But what about the impact on the good burghers of Eccles and their delicious cakes, when profits are undermined by a perfidious baker in Bratislava?
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
But what about the impact on the good burghers of Eccles and their delicious cakes, when profits are undermined by a perfidious baker in Bratislava?
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Exactly.
Protectionism doesn’t help consumers. Providing something is safe, there should be no real restrictions on whether something is called Champagne or Parmagiano.
Mr. B, plenty of animals exist that are half the size of a human, or smaller.
The clear implication was that they are 1/1000th of full size.
Exist, sure - but full human level cognition in an organism of that size would require a far more efficient brain structure. Perhaps if he had bird brain...
Kanye West is who we are talking about here.
self-made multi millionaire in a fantastically competitive field but yeah let’s all all humble-brag about our A levels in Home Economics to sooth our fragile egos - I got shit A levels and a DPhil in complex systems but that doesn’t mean I feel smarter than Kanye
This is one of the best and maddest posts on PB I've ever read.
why thank you kind sir - your de haute en bas pat on the head is gratefully acknowledged
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer, taking us back to the bad old days when UK merchants sold 'Burgundy' adulterated with Algerian plonk.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
Yep that's a funny one (as in pretty simple) for the Brexiters to misunderstand.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
How anyone can argue against this self-evident truth is beyond me.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
The critical issue is labelling, as to whether Crimean Champagne, Wisconsin Parmesan or Californian Chablis are labelled correctly. My understanding is that the US food companies prefer slipping their factory made pap under the radar.
A senior Justice Department lawyer says a former British spy told him at a breakfast meeting two years ago that Russian intelligence believed it had Donald Trump “over a barrel,” according to multiple people familiar with the encounter.
That assumes that Trump has a sense of shame.
Shame doesn't come into it if it's dodgy money that they have over him.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
So call it English Sparkling Wine, which is what it is (and very good too, much of it).
Would you be happy if, after English winemakers established a reputation for quality, the Chinese started selling some carbonated factory plonk under the name English Sparkling Wine?
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
Yep that's a funny one (as in pretty simple) for the Brexiters to misunderstand.
Mr. B, plenty of animals exist that are half the size of a human, or smaller.
The clear implication was that they are 1/1000th of full size.
Exist, sure - but full human level cognition in an organism of that size would require a far more efficient brain structure. Perhaps if he had bird brain...
Kanye West is who we are talking about here.
self-made multi millionaire in a fantastically competitive field but yeah let’s all all humble-brag about our A levels in Home Economics to sooth our fragile egos - I got shit A levels and a DPhil in complex systems but that doesn’t mean I feel smarter than Kanye
This is one of the best and maddest posts on PB I've ever read.
why thank you kind sir - your de haute en bas pat on the head is gratefully acknowledged
Not sure Wolfson counts as a proper Oxford college, mind.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
By the same token, presumably a "Chequers Brexit" is as good as any other Brexit.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
The village of Stilton in Cambridgeshire, after which the cheese was named, cannot make Stilton.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
Bizarre. I mean the concept of brand importance and rules of origin are fairly straightforward and logical.
English champagne would, in 84% of cases, be inferior to French champagne where...
Actually, I was going to set down an example of how it would be bad but realised that I am talking to a grown up and shouldn't really need to.
Labour 33,558 76.9% Conservative 8,044 8.4% Liberal Dem. 1,118 2.6% Green 943 1.8%
Good luck with the By Election Frank
Oh your not calling one
Surprise Surprise
Field will look stupidly and cowardly if he fails to call one now. If he wasn't 100% sure he was going to call one, he ought not have floated the idea.
Late to the game but: 1. I don't think he'll call one 2. I don't think he'd win if he did 3. I suspect he's probably going to retire at the next election now anyway
And to the comment about the Conservatives and Lib Dems standing aside, I hope they don't. I'm a firm believer in the principle that if they see themselves as a major party, they stand whatever the 'weather' in that seat would suggest.
I can't see anything other than a safe Labour hold if Field does call for one.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
The village of Stilton in Cambridgeshire, after which the cheese was named, cannot make Stilton.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
Yep that's a funny one (as in pretty simple) for the Brexiters to misunderstand.
Cheddar's an odd one though.
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
No they're not. You used to be able to get in Australia very good Australian Champagnes. They were properly labelled so how was it a fraud? Already not all French Champagnes are the same, which is why you get some for much, much cheaper than others - why should a cheap French champagne be genuine but a a premium Australian one is a fraud?
It is a trade issue not a protection issue and if the French farmers want it they can agree it (and agree to Stilton etc) in a trade deal. No deal, no protectionism.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
The village of Stilton in Cambridgeshire, after which the cheese was named, cannot make Stilton.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
Yep that's a funny one (as in pretty simple) for the Brexiters to misunderstand.
Cheddar's an odd one though.
Yes a quick google informed me that a recent filing means that West Country Farmhouse Cheddar is an exception. Although as someone once said, adding the word "Farmhouse" to anything adds 20% to the sale price.
Geographical designation is really only a form of protection of intellectual property.
If the USA wants to force Californian Chablis on us, then we should also be allowed Indian made Microsoft Office knock offs.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
The village of Stilton in Cambridgeshire, after which the cheese was named, cannot make Stilton.
Yep - that's why someone came up with Stichelton (sp).
Stilton is made in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire - Cropwell Bishop, Colston Bassett, Long Clawson. There used to be a Quenby stilton but it went bust. There is apparently a Melton Mowbray and a Saxelbye one but those must be dairies not where they are made as I have never heard of them.
Absolutely, geographical indicators should expire the second a trade deal expires. They can form part of the new trade deal but they're not part of our settling up and exiting.
Yeah, British consumers should have the sovereign right to be sold factory crap labelled as Parmesan and sparkling bilge-water labelled as Champagne.
Yes we should. It isn't to protect our consumers that Champagne is protected, it is to protect the profits of those based in Champagne. We could easily allow Champagne to be sold but require a prominent country of origin to be displayed, so something could be sold as "English Champagne".
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Nonsense. The use of names such as Champagne, Stilton, Parmesan to sell products which are imitations at best is quite simply a fraud on the consumer.
It's only a fraud if they are misled. "English Champagne" doesn't really mislead anyone. It is a champagne style wine made in this country. There is far too much of this geographical exclusivity nonsense.
By the same token, presumably a "Chequers Brexit" is as good as any other Brexit.
I am not sure that the geographical description is really the key thing there. Quite like a lot of other products to be honest.
Comments
Could easily drag in Egypt and Jordan as well.
https://twitter.com/bengartside/status/1035535034239930368?s=21
That's why I was wondering if the FIA had modelled it.
Some crashes might just be unsurvivable, whatever we do. Prevention might be a better start; there had been several cases where cars had nearly hit (or hit) rescue vehicles on track, and these were ignored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUUUKuo8hXs
You're cheating by including those plonkers in Westminster. In Scotland we have a bunch of dinosaurs (with due apologies to any dinosauria actually reading about the unfair stereotyping) in local government that no one has ever heard of against a former First Minister who won an absolute majority when that was not supposed to be possible and damn near won an Independence Referendum without even the semblance of a coherent plan for independence and who has been a fixture on our screens and talk shows for more than 20 years. Not even close.
And whilst replying I completely agree with your reply to Nigel_Foremain. The modern SNP is a social democratic party whose main objective I profoundly disagree with but to suggest that there is any taint on it because of what some nutters did or didn't do 70 years ago is ridiculous. It's like those who criticise the Daily Mail for having supported fascism in the 1930s as opposed to just being bigoted crap.
Most political parties espoused pretty vile views back in the 1930s judged by today's standards, and no politician active back then is even alive now.
From the Betfair forum:
Cardinal Scott • August 31, 2018 1:01 PM BST
£539.16 Green India
£710.95 Red England
£580.78 Red Draw
Cardinal Scott • August 31, 2018 4:17 PM BST
FFS I'm buried!
If Palestinians want American taxdollars it seems reasonable to request that the Palestinians become friendly with America. If they're not going to then they should ask those who they are friendly with to support them.
PS if Egypt and Jordan were footing the bill for the Palestinians I suspect a compromise with Israel that achieved peace would have been secured already.
https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/1035546462829129729
England's electoral problems remain the top three positions. Clearly Jennings is done, but Cook looks at the very fag end of his career, and Root is just not a number three, particularly when he has to come in so early every innings.
If we had a decent opening pair, we'd look quite a useful side.
Morsels of progress sound quite appetising, though.
His big guiding principle (apart from being anti-EU) is as I recall that he's passionately a universal benefits man, opposed to the withdrawal of benefits as incomes rise, because it introduces a major disincentive to getting a job. I'd think he'd be up for a citizen's income approach. The downside - and the reason it's never been adopted - is that paying the same benefits to the wealthy becomes hugely expensive and feels not really sensible.
Left-wing, right-wing? Not applicable. He's simply Frank Field. It's entirely characteristic that he hasn't coordinated his resignation with anyone. I like him, and he's definitely always worth considering, though IMO not a natural Minister (because Ministers really do need to consult and compromise).
England bowlers: 141-5
India Batsmen: 177-6
India bowlers: 5-3
"Dominic Raab's progress with Michel Barnier has underlined how bad David Davis was at the Brexit negotiations"
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-talks-michel-barnier-dominic-raab-uk-eu-deal-border-immigration-a8516816.html
Universal benefits are currently unpopular, but FF is right.
Taken antisemitism seriously?
Been serious about "kinder, gentler politics"?
The english batsmen can't bat or bowl, but the english bowlers can both bat and bowl(*).
*Well except Jimmy and Stu, but they can both bowl very well indeed.
There is your problem with Jezza and anti-semitism right there.
A senior Justice Department lawyer says a former British spy told him at a breakfast meeting two years ago that Russian intelligence believed it had Donald Trump “over a barrel,” according to multiple people familiar with the encounter.
If the EU wants us to protect Champagne's profits then they can agree a trade deal with us, its that simple.
Witness his churlish and petulant response to any question ever posed by a journalist, and lack of involvement in any internal party matter, and lack of involvement in detailed policy-setting.
has a ring to it.
Protectionism doesn’t help consumers. Providing something is safe, there should be no real restrictions on whether something is called Champagne or Parmagiano.
Would you be happy if, after English winemakers established a reputation for quality, the Chinese started selling some carbonated factory plonk under the name English Sparkling Wine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilton#Cheese
English champagne would, in 84% of cases, be inferior to French champagne where...Actually, I was going to set down an example of how it would be bad but realised that I am talking to a grown up and shouldn't really need to.
1. I don't think he'll call one
2. I don't think he'd win if he did
3. I suspect he's probably going to retire at the next election now anyway
And to the comment about the Conservatives and Lib Dems standing aside, I hope they don't. I'm a firm believer in the principle that if they see themselves as a major party, they stand whatever the 'weather' in that seat would suggest.
I can't see anything other than a safe Labour hold if Field does call for one.
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1035551766664957952
At the moment, the number of extras India conceded are the difference betweeen the sides.
It is a trade issue not a protection issue and if the French farmers want it they can agree it (and agree to Stilton etc) in a trade deal. No deal, no protectionism.
https://order-order.com/2018/08/31/moggs-bollocks-to-brexit-moment/
If the USA wants to force Californian Chablis on us, then we should also be allowed Indian made Microsoft Office knock offs.
Stilton is made in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire - Cropwell Bishop, Colston Bassett, Long Clawson. There used to be a Quenby stilton but it went bust. There is apparently a Melton Mowbray and a Saxelbye one but those must be dairies not where they are made as I have never heard of them.