We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
I don't think there's any sign of that, bar some anonymous MP saying the Information Commissioner notification was a cunning plot. If the ICO found that Starmer's staff had infringed a rule by looking at a database that should have been sealed, he would need to reprimand them, but there is nothing in the rulebook that says that if someone's staff breaks a rule then they can't stand as leader.
I think Starmer's camp in his absence (family illness) have overreacted - the party is required by law to report any allegation of infringement, so they have, shrug.
I'm glad to hear it. It's a story that's made me feel uneasy about them.
I have to keep reminding myself that most of the people on this site proclaiming an understanding of how the Labour left work have been to one fewer Labour party meeting than I have!
Did you see how they got Corbyn-backing candidates to stand in various constituencies at the GE against the wishes of local members?
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
The thing about online trans screaming matches is that you would expect it to be a traditional left vs right thing, but it appears that many left wingers are among the most very vocal about their concerns e.g. JK Rowling, Father Ted writer, Peter Tatchell, Germaine Greer etc.
And when it comes to wider identity politics / freedom of speech again the likes of Tom Walker / Andrew Doyle have found common ground with your Douglas Murray's of this world.
Or the BoE steps up to the plate for transactions in London for established market makers. In which event who cares what the ECB wants?
Hmm, would the Bank stand behind Euro denominated government bonds though?
The issuer of the bond is precisely the guarantor. The BoE or anyone else would be foolish to act otherwise.
If the UK issues Euro denominated debt then clearly the BoE will stand behind it. (Probably not technically true, but much the same effect)
This is not about the German or Greek government defaulting. It's about a market maker in government bonds failing to deliver.
In the bankruptcies of Lehman, Drexel Burnham Lambert and others, the central banks stepped in to avoid failed delivery of government securities.
The issue is about a tiny part of investment banks' portfolio of businesses - market making in government bonds, and whether the ECB would step up to guarantee delivery from a business over which it did not have regulatory oversight. I suspect that it will be easier for investment banks to move market making in Bunds, OTPs, etc. to Frankfurt or Amsterdam.
The clearing houses are responsible for delivery.
If it's a central bank delivery mechanism then that central bank is responsible.
Failed delivery terms are very draconian.
I'd be very interested to see your source on failed delivery being something the central banks had to step into - the rules are very clear.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
Or the BoE steps up to the plate for transactions in London for established market makers. In which event who cares what the ECB wants?
Hmm, would the Bank stand behind Euro denominated government bonds though?
The issuer of the bond is precisely the guarantor. The BoE or anyone else would be foolish to act otherwise.
If the UK issues Euro denominated debt then clearly the BoE will stand behind it. (Probably not technically true, but much the same effect)
This is not about the German or Greek government defaulting. It's about a market maker in government bonds failing to deliver.
In the bankruptcies of Lehman, Drexel Burnham Lambert and others, the central banks stepped in to avoid failed delivery of government securities.
The issue is about a tiny part of investment banks' portfolio of businesses - market making in government bonds, and whether the ECB would step up to guarantee delivery from a business over which it did not have regulatory oversight. I suspect that it will be easier for investment banks to move market making in Bunds, OTPs, etc. to Frankfurt or Amsterdam.
The clearing houses are responsible for delivery.
If it's a central bank delivery mechanism then that central bank is responsible.
Failed delivery terms are very draconian.
I'd be very interested to see your source on failed delivery being something the central banks had to step into - the rules are very clear.
This was in the repo markets, where Lehman was unable to deliber.
That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
It's the kind of thing a minister says in the election studio when they didn't do as well as they'd hoped
I think there were people who could have voted Lib Dem in 2017 but didn't because they didn't want May to get a landslide, then did do so in 2019.
For it to be one of the main factors, it would involve hundreds of thousands of people actively making a risky decision with their vote - I've never seen any evidence that voters behave that way in large numbers.
In 2017 there was a fairly large pool of liberal-leaning remain voters considering Labour but didn't much like the look of Corbyn, hence Labour polling awfully before the election. There was also a group of previously solid Labour voters who voted leave who were mulling a switch to the Tories. May's awful campaign, Corbyn's relatively successful one, that greatly improved his personal ratings, and the fact there was a degree of loyalty to the Labour brand rather than Corbyn to the extent people who didn't really want him as PM, were persuaded to stick with the party to avert catastrophe. Couple that with a manifesto that was fanciful but not utterly ludicrous and the Tories' failures to attack it and you had lots of voters who were initially eyeing defection go back in the red camp - not necessarily because they'd been entirely convinced by Labour, but were willing to give it another shot when faced with the prospect of a Tory landslide.
By 2019, Corbyn had torched what there was of his reputation by proving that criticism of his past as completely disqualifying was justified with stuff like his actions on the Skripals, and it becoming apparent he had serious issues with antisemitism rather than historical quirks. He had managed to frustrate remainers and leavers by not signalling any true intention on Brexit. Plus the far left had taken over Labour, while bullying out many moderates, so it was impossible to argue with any real persuasive power that a vote for Labour wasn't necessarily a vote for the dreadful people in charge of it. In 2017, you could still tell yourself you were voting for the party of John Woodcock or Mike Gapes, not to mention the questions raised by Berger and Ellman's exit were yet to be posed. Not in 2019. If you voted Labour it meant very much owning what you were voting for - and for enough 2017 it was just too repugnant. That and the notion those dreadful people might be running the country, drained that pool of sceptical Labour voters away to the Lib Dems and Tories.
Or the BoE steps up to the plate for transactions in London for established market makers. In which event who cares what the ECB wants?
Hmm, would the Bank stand behind Euro denominated government bonds though?
The issuer of the bond is precisely the guarantor. The BoE or anyone else would be foolish to act otherwise.
If the UK issues Euro denominated debt then clearly the BoE will stand behind it. (Probably not technically true, but much the same effect)
This is not about the German or Greek government defaulting. It's about a market maker in government bonds failing to deliver.
In the bankruptcies of Lehman, Drexel Burnham Lambert and others, the central banks stepped in to avoid failed delivery of government securities.
The issue is about a tiny part of investment banks' portfolio of businesses - market making in government bonds, and whether the ECB would step up to guarantee delivery from a business over which it did not have regulatory oversight. I suspect that it will be easier for investment banks to move market making in Bunds, OTPs, etc. to Frankfurt or Amsterdam.
The clearing houses are responsible for delivery.
If it's a central bank delivery mechanism then that central bank is responsible.
Failed delivery terms are very draconian.
I'd be very interested to see your source on failed delivery being something the central banks had to step into - the rules are very clear.
This was in the repo markets, where Lehman was unable to deliber.
Which clearing mechanism though? A repo is just a buy and sell-back. These transactions are cleared by a clearing house.
The thing about online trans screaming matches is that you would expect it to be a traditional left vs right thing, but it appears that many left wingers are among the most very vocal about their concerns e.g. JK Rowling, Father Ted writer, Peter Tatchell, Germaine Greer etc.
And when it comes to wider identity politics / freedom of speech again the likes of Tom Walker / Andrew Doyle have found common ground with your Douglas Murray's of this world.
Non-dualism of gender is a very common sense approach, particularly common among the left which tends to be more egalitarian. Once you admit that there's no such thing as a male experience that can't be part of a female one and vice versa, except the biology, it becomes harder to square that position with people saying that they know what it is to be male / female, which is too simplistic a position.
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
That's the problem , Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
In 2017 there was a fairly large pool of liberal-leaning remain voters considering Labour but didn't much like the look of Corbyn, hence Labour polling awfully before the election. There was also a group of previously solid Labour voters who voted leave who were mulling a switch to the Tories. May's awful campaign, Corbyn's relatively successful one, that greatly improved his personal ratings, and the fact there was a degree of loyalty to the Labour brand rather than Corbyn to the extent people who didn't really want him as PM, were persuaded to stick with the party to avert catastrophe. Couple that with a manifesto that was fanciful but not utterly ludicrous and the Tories' failures to attack it and you had lots of voters who were initially eyeing defection go back in the red camp - not necessarily because they'd been entirely convinced by Labour, but were willing to give it another shot when faced with the prospect of a Tory landslide.
By 2019, Corbyn had torched what there was of his reputation by proving that criticism of his past as completely disqualifying was justified with stuff like his actions on the Skripals, and it becoming apparent he had serious issues with antisemitism rather than historical quirks. He had managed to frustrate remainers and leavers by not signalling any true intention on Brexit. Plus the far left had taken over Labour, while bullying out many moderates, so it was impossible to argue with any real persuasive power that a vote for Labour wasn't necessarily a vote for the dreadful people in charge of it. In 2017, you could still tell yourself you were voting for the party of John Woodcock or Mike Gapes, not to mention the questions raised by Berger and Ellman's exit were yet to be posed. Not in 2019. If you voted Labour it meant very much owning what you were voting for - and for enough 2017 it was just too repugnant. That and the notion those dreadful people might be running the country, drained that pool of sceptical Labour voters away to the Lib Dems and Tories.
I agree with much of that - but the prospect of a Tory landslide was much diminished by the last week of the 2017 campaign. Several polls were showing Tory leads in the range of 1% - 4% which raised the significant possibility of a Hung Parliament - particularly when GB vote share was being boosted by a Tory surge in Scotland.Experienced Tory workers such as David Herdson had clearly become pretty apprehensive based on doorstep evidence.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
The only people who were buying a new phone every year (apart from @TheScreamingEagles ) were those who needed the camera features (which is pretty much all that’s been improving recently). $1,400 though, that buys you a very high end optical zoom camera, or even an SLR with a decent lens for your Instagram pics...
This is silly too. The maximum penalty is £1.5 million, for extremely serious cases, typically involving cover-ups - which in this case is the opposite of reality since the party reported it at once. I'll be surprised if they get more than a mild reprimand.
In theory, if I light a cigarette in a building and ask you if you're OK with it, if you agree you and I are guilty of conspiracy, which I believe has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In practice...not so much.
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
The only people who were buying a new phone every year (apart from @TheScreamingEagles ) were those who needed the camera features (which is pretty much all that’s been improving recently). $1,400 though, that buys you a very high end optical zoom camera, or even an SLR with a decent lens for your Instagram pics...
And people who are utterly gadget obsessed. Like, errrr, me.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
We’ll see. I think there’s a reason why the hard left is throwing every dirty trick possible at him. They will try to get him off the ballot.
I don't think there's any sign of that, bar some anonymous MP saying the Information Commissioner notification was a cunning plot. If the ICO found that Starmer's staff had infringed a rule by looking at a database that should have been sealed, he would need to reprimand them, but there is nothing in the rulebook that says that if someone's staff breaks a rule then they can't stand as leader.
I think Starmer's camp in his absence (family illness) have overreacted - the party is required by law to report any allegation of infringement, so they have, shrug.
I'm glad to hear it. It's a story that's made me feel uneasy about them.
I have to keep reminding myself that most of the people on this site proclaiming an understanding of how the Labour left work have been to one fewer Labour party meeting than I have!
Did you see how they got Corbyn-backing candidates to stand in various constituencies at the GE against the wishes of local members?
I have no doubt that some horrible things have happened - the abuse directed at Luciana Berger for one. And I had encounters with Socialist Workers when I was a student, so I have first hand experience of how unpleasant some people on the left can be.
What I don't know is how widespread it is. It's clear that this site suffers from confirmation bias (I'm being diplomatic here) when discussing the Labour left. I will find out for myself soon enough.
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
The only people who were buying a new phone every year (apart from @TheScreamingEagles ) were those who needed the camera features (which is pretty much all that’s been improving recently). $1,400 though, that buys you a very high end optical zoom camera, or even an SLR with a decent lens for your Instagram pics...
Personally, the big improvement from the review videos I have seen is again the screen. Samsung are miles ahead in the screen tech.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
This is silly too. The maximum penalty is £1.5 million, for extremely serious cases, typically involving cover-ups - which in this case is the opposite of reality since the party reported it at once. I'll be surprised if they get more than a mild reprimand.
In theory, if I light a cigarette in a building and ask you if you're OK with it, if you agree you and I are guilty of conspiracy, which I believe has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In practice...not so much.
Replaced by the Serious Crime Act 2007, in which you had a walk-on role:
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
This is silly too. The maximum penalty is £1.5 million, for extremely serious cases, typically involving cover-ups - which in this case is the opposite of reality since the party reported it at once. I'll be surprised if they get more than a mild reprimand.
In theory, if I light a cigarette in a building and ask you if you're OK with it, if you agree you and I are guilty of conspiracy, which I believe has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In practice...not so much.
Why do you think the maximum fine is £1.5m?
I don't know how they are calculated for non-profit making enterprises.
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
The only people who were buying a new phone every year (apart from @TheScreamingEagles ) were those who needed the camera features (which is pretty much all that’s been improving recently). $1,400 though, that buys you a very high end optical zoom camera, or even an SLR with a decent lens for your Instagram pics...
Neither of which fits in your pocket.
I would never pay such money for a phone, I am happy with my 6s Plus, which still has a 3.5mm audio port.
But really, different strokes for different folks. Find something worthwhile to rant about.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
What a coincidence - I just popped back to see what PB made of HS2, and people are taking my old name in vain .
Welcome back!
Thank you, but it's a flying visit. One of the minor infelicities of the EUref was the descent of PB to Twitter-like levels of unpleasantness, which was a pity - I'd been posting since '06 and I'd always appreciated the civil tone of the bulk of the regulars here. I shall doubtless lurk here during GE '24, should I still be on this mortal coil!
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
The only people who were buying a new phone every year (apart from @TheScreamingEagles ) were those who needed the camera features (which is pretty much all that’s been improving recently). $1,400 though, that buys you a very high end optical zoom camera, or even an SLR with a decent lens for your Instagram pics...
They are using a 3x3 Bayer grid so the actual output will be 12MP.
What time do we expect to have an idea who has won NH this evening?
Polling times are set locally, with some precincts going for 7pm and other for 8pm. This means the first results will trickle out at about 7:30pm (12:30am UK time). I assume we'll have an exit poll at 8pm from one of the networks, although they'll probably go with their bullshit "Too Close To Call", even if Sanders is seven points clear.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
Whether it was made for the right reasons is another question.
Oh, an actual rail expert writes, and yes he says get on with it.
IMVHO, the UK desperately needs to JFDI when it comes to infrastructure. Every year spent talking about these things is another year where the productivity gains from them not being open is lost. Depreciate the cost over 50 years for a railway, and think how many smelly lorries get off the M1 and M6 once the capacity exists for more rail freight.
Now, have the balls to build two new runways at Heathrow.
What time do we expect to have an idea who has won NH this evening?
Polling times are set locally, with some precincts going for 7pm and other for 8pm. This means the first results will trickle out at about 7:30pm (12:30am UK time). I assume we'll have an exit poll at 8pm from one of the networks, although they'll probably go with their bullshit "Too Close To Call", even if Sanders is seven points clear.
Well if CNN do the exit poll, it will be breaking news every 15 mins, we have found left handed half asian gay women have said the most important issue is.....
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
Whether it was made for the right reasons is another question.
Oh, an actual rail expert writes, and yes he says get on with it.
IMVHO, the UK desperately needs to JFDI when it comes to infrastructure. Every year spent talking about these things is another year where the productivity gains from them not being open is lost. Depreciate the cost over 50 years for a railway, and think how many smelly lorries get off the M1 and M6 once the capacity exists for more rail freight.
Now, have the balls to build two new runways at Heathrow.
Please sir, can we have some decent rail services between the Northern cities first?
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
Whether it was made for the right reasons is another question.
Oh, an actual rail expert writes, and yes he says get on with it.
IMVHO, the UK desperately needs to JFDI when it comes to infrastructure. Every year spent talking about these things is another year where the productivity gains from them not being open is lost. Depreciate the cost over 50 years for a railway, and think how many smelly lorries get off the M1 and M6 once the capacity exists for more rail freight.
Now, have the balls to build two new runways at Heathrow.
Please sir, can we have some decent rail services between the Northern cities first?
You are getting some new peasant wagons, is that not good enough?
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
If the result tonight is Buttigieg-Sanders-Warren, then I can't believe that Biden will still be a greater probability of getting the nomination than Buttigieg.
$1400 for a cell phone !!!! And why do I need a 108 megapixel camera and 8k video recording (that will surely eat up all your storage in a few minutes)? I presume the next iCrap will now have to be $2000, because that's how Apple price things.
The only people who were buying a new phone every year (apart from @TheScreamingEagles ) were those who needed the camera features (which is pretty much all that’s been improving recently). $1,400 though, that buys you a very high end optical zoom camera, or even an SLR with a decent lens for your Instagram pics...
Neither of which fits in your pocket.
I would never pay such money for a phone, I am happy with my 6s Plus, which still has a 3.5mm audio port.
But really, different strokes for different folks. Find something worthwhile to rant about.
I still have the 2016 iPhone SE, and my next phone is another one of the same that sits in a box in a cupboard. It’s the last one that fits in the pocket.
I’m a two-device guy, have the iPad set up so that I can work in a coffee shop or a pub, a lot of my work is Remote Desktop into computers which is a complete pain on a phone.
You are getting some new peasant wagons, is that not good enough?
No, trains are more important in the North.
Incidentally I was told off recently for calling them peasant wagons, apparently I come across as snobby, condescending, and elitist when I call buses 'peasant wagons'.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
Whether it was made for the right reasons is another question.
Oh, an actual rail expert writes, and yes he says get on with it.
IMVHO, the UK desperately needs to JFDI when it comes to infrastructure. Every year spent talking about these things is another year where the productivity gains from them not being open is lost. Depreciate the cost over 50 years for a railway, and think how many smelly lorries get off the M1 and M6 once the capacity exists for more rail freight.
Now, have the balls to build two new runways at Heathrow.
Please sir, can we have some decent rail services between the Northern cities first?
But that wouldn't benefit civil servants in Whitehall. So no.
This is silly too. The maximum penalty is £1.5 million, for extremely serious cases, typically involving cover-ups - which in this case is the opposite of reality since the party reported it at once. I'll be surprised if they get more than a mild reprimand.
In theory, if I light a cigarette in a building and ask you if you're OK with it, if you agree you and I are guilty of conspiracy, which I believe has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In practice...not so much.
Why do you think the maximum fine is £1.5m?
I don't know how they are calculated for non-profit making enterprises.
The max is a proportion (4%) of global revenue, usually, for undertakings. I assume this is consistent between profit and non-profit making enterprises, but I don't know for certain.
You are getting some new peasant wagons, is that not good enough?
No, trains are more important in the North.
Incidentally I was told off recently for calling them peasant wagons, apparently I come across as snobby, condescending, and elitist when I call buses 'peasant wagons'.
Some people really don't know me .
Only Northern Softies complain about the lack of First Class seating on the Sheffield to Manchester line!
Oh, an actual rail expert writes, and yes he says get on with it.
IMVHO, the UK desperately needs to JFDI when it comes to infrastructure. Every year spent talking about these things is another year where the productivity gains from them not being open is lost. Depreciate the cost over 50 years for a railway, and think how many smelly lorries get off the M1 and M6 once the capacity exists for more rail freight.
Now, have the balls to build two new runways at Heathrow.
Interesting to read the actual Oakervee review and its costings. Its highest estimate (P.56) is £87.7 billion with a very substantial contingency. (In fact it seems to think around £60 billion is the likely cost, although it notes costings on the phase to Leeds are currently very uncertain.)
Meanwhile it is absolutely scathing about this £106 billion estimate that third rate retard Cummings leaked and the media have uncritically swallowed:
The Review considered a cost estimate of the HS2 project that has been developed by an external consultant. This estimate sets out a total cost of £106.6bn in Q4 2015 prices for the HS2 project. The Review commissioned a comparative analysis of this external consultant’s cost estimate and the cost estimates developed by HS2 Ltd for Phase One. Evidence provided by Network Rail to the Review indicated that major rail infrastructure cost plans generally exhibit certain characteristics. Such characteristics were not evident in the estimate developed by the external consultant in that it seemed to the Review that the amounts allocated towards major construction works were too low, and the amounts allocated towards rail systems seemed too high. This view was confirmed by evidence provided to the Review by Network Rail. (P.60)
I am confused the eco-warriors are against HS2, but I though they wanted us out of the cars / planes and onto trains?
Yep, the proponents have screwed up the messaging. It’s not about getting from London to Birmingham 12 minutes faster, it’s about getting 20,000 lorries a day off the M1 and M6.
Linehan became a massive transphobe because he couldn't take some really mild criticism of one of the episodes of the It crowd.
He's obsessed. Utterly obsessed.
Seem to recall that when I first started on here a couple of years ago there was a trans person who was a regular with many thousands of posts. A Leave voter, I think. Perhaps I've got that wrong but that's what I remember.
Whether it was made for the right reasons is another question.
Oh, an actual rail expert writes, and yes he says get on with it.
IMVHO, the UK desperately needs to JFDI when it comes to infrastructure. Every year spent talking about these things is another year where the productivity gains from them not being open is lost. Depreciate the cost over 50 years for a railway, and think how many smelly lorries get off the M1 and M6 once the capacity exists for more rail freight.
Now, have the balls to build two new runways at Heathrow.
Please sir, can we have some decent rail services between the Northern cities first?
No. For the simple reason that the infrastructure needed to provide them is integrally linked to, er, HS2.
I am confused the eco-warriors are against HS2, but I though they wanted us out of the cars / planes and onto trains?
Yep, the proponents have screwed up the messaging. It’s not about getting from London to Birmingham 12 minutes faster, it’s about getting 20,000 lorries a day off the M1 and M6.
I have a sneaking suspicion that when it comes to the likes of XR, no amount of messaging / outcomes would make them happy unless it was the fall of our capitalist society.
This is silly too. The maximum penalty is £1.5 million, for extremely serious cases, typically involving cover-ups - which in this case is the opposite of reality since the party reported it at once. I'll be surprised if they get more than a mild reprimand.
In theory, if I light a cigarette in a building and ask you if you're OK with it, if you agree you and I are guilty of conspiracy, which I believe has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In practice...not so much.
Why do you think the maximum fine is £1.5m?
I don't know how they are calculated for non-profit making enterprises.
The max is a proportion (4%) of global revenue, usually, for undertakings. I assume this is consistent between profit and non-profit making enterprises, but I don't know for certain.
Labour party annual report claims income of £46m, including donations of £6m. That implies a max fine of either £1.6m or £1.84m, depending on whether donations count as revenue. Either way, the probability of any fine being anywhere near those levels are effectively zero.
In any case, based on the reports so far, it appears that the rules which were broken were internal party rules. In the sense that the candidates will have access to the databases once the proper contest starts, but have been banned from contacting supporters until then, presumably to stop them lobbying CLPs for support. In which case I guess it's unclear that a referral to the IC was even necessary? Which could imply a (very sensible) safety-first policy, or evidence that it's just a dirty tricks campaign targeting Starmer.
That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
ed
I think9.
For is.
In 2017 there was a fairly large pool of liberal-leaning remain voters considering Labour but didn't much like the look of Corbyn, hence Labour polling awfully before the election. There was also a group of previously solid Labour voters who voted leave who were mulling a switch to the Tories. May's awful campaign, Corbyn's relatively successful one, that greatly improved his personal ratings, and the fact there was a degree of loyalty to the Labour brand rather than Corbyn to the extent people who didn't really want him as PM, were persuaded to stick with the party to avert catastrophe. Couple that with a manifesto that was fanciful but not utterly ludicrous and the Tories' failures to attack it and you had lots of voters who were initially eyeing defection go back in the red camp - not necessarily because they'd been entirely convinced by Labour, but were willing to give it another shot when faced with the prospect of a Tory landslide.
By 2019, Corbyn had torched what there was of his reputation by proving that criticism of his past as completely disqualifying was justified with stuff like his actions on the Skripals, and it becoming apparent he had serious issues with antisemitism rather than historical quirks. He had managed to frustrate remainers and leavers by not signalling any true intention on Brexit. Plus the far left had taken over Labour, while bullying out many moderates, so it was impossible to argue with any real persuasive power that a vote for Labour wasn't necessarily a vote for the dreadful people in charge of it. In 2017, you could still tell yourself you were voting for the party of John Woodcock or Mike Gapes, not to mention the questions raised by Berger and Ellman's exit were yet to be posed. Not in 2019. If you voted Labour it meant very much owning what you were voting for - and for enough 2017 it was just too repugnant. That and the notion those dreadful people might be running the country, drained that pool of sceptical Labour voters away to the Lib Dems and Tories.
Great post.
Plus don't forget there were certainly a lot of young and enthusiastic volunteers attracted to the Labour Party in 2017 and although plenty if not all were still there, there were no more in 2019.
In theory, if I light a cigarette in a building and ask you if you're OK with it, if you agree you and I are guilty of conspiracy, which I believe has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In practice...not so much.
Replaced by the Serious Crime Act 2007, in which you had a walk-on role:
"Let’s clarify the ancient woodlands question. The emerging new Lower Thames motorway crossing (14 miles) takes 54 hectares of such woodland, while the entire 345 miles of HS2 takes just 58 hectares. A House of Lords committee has commented: “The loss of less than one hectare of ancient woodland from about 11,000 in the Chiltern AoNB is, we consider, a remarkable achievement.” Let’s answer this definitively. It is claimed that the whole HS2 route from London to Leeds and Manchester will have an impact on just 0.01% of our ancient woodlands - that’s just one ten-thousandth of ALL the UK’s ancient woodland. Opponents give the impression of much greater impact."
New Hampshire: I've just been looking through the number of field offices. Intriguingly, it's not Sanders or Buttigieg who have the most (six each), but Warren (with seven).
"Let’s clarify the ancient woodlands question. The emerging new Lower Thames motorway crossing (14 miles) takes 54 hectares of such woodland, while the entire 345 miles of HS2 takes just 58 hectares. A House of Lords committee has commented: “The loss of less than one hectare of ancient woodland from about 11,000 in the Chiltern AoNB is, we consider, a remarkable achievement.” Let’s answer this definitively. It is claimed that the whole HS2 route from London to Leeds and Manchester will have an impact on just 0.01% of our ancient woodlands - that’s just one ten-thousandth of ALL the UK’s ancient woodland. Opponents give the impression of much greater impact."
From p.46 of Oakervee:
One example of environmental impacts is the impact on woodlands, for which HS2 Ltd have put in place repair and compensation measures. On Phase One, this includes the planting of 112.5 hectares of woodland in response to the direct loss of 29.4 hectares of ancient woodland. For Phase 2a, compensation measures to address the direct loss of 10.2 hectares of ancient woodland include the planting of 77.1 hectares of woodland. Similar figures are not yet available for Phase 2b given its current lack of maturity, although the Review has seen evidence to suggest that at least 10 ancient woodlands will be affected. The Review recognised however that planting new woodland is not a direct replacement for removing areas of ancient woodland.
Also, re New Hampshire, could we have another situation where Sanders wins the popular vote, but Buttigieg ends up with as many (or more) delegates?
You see, delegates are awarded at the district level. And you need 15% to get any delegates.
The First Congressional District, which is older, wealthier and more Republican leaning, looks tailor-made to give Buttigieg votes. It also could well see the other moderates fail to get 15%. You could therefore see only Sanders and Buttigieg pick up delegates here. If it were (say) 30% Buttigieg, 28% Sanders in the district, then he would pick up a comfortable majority of the delegates. (Say 8 Buttigieg, 6 Sanders). Being more Republican, it's also likely to see a lower turnout for the Primary.
If in the Second Congressional District Sanders were to win with a good margin over Buttigieg, but Klobuchar and Warren both make the 15% hurdle, then the impact of Sanders win would be smaller. (Sanders 4, Buttigieg 3, Klobuchar 3, Warren 2).,
So, Buttigieg could end up with the most delegates despite being well behind Sanders (say 29% to 24%) in vote share.
"Let’s clarify the ancient woodlands question. The emerging new Lower Thames motorway crossing (14 miles) takes 54 hectares of such woodland, while the entire 345 miles of HS2 takes just 58 hectares. A House of Lords committee has commented: “The loss of less than one hectare of ancient woodland from about 11,000 in the Chiltern AoNB is, we consider, a remarkable achievement.” Let’s answer this definitively. It is claimed that the whole HS2 route from London to Leeds and Manchester will have an impact on just 0.01% of our ancient woodlands - that’s just one ten-thousandth of ALL the UK’s ancient woodland. Opponents give the impression of much greater impact."
What the Woodland Trust says:
"While we are in favour of green transport and not against high speed rail projects in principle, we are strongly opposed to the HS2 route.
With at least 108 ancient woods being subject to damage and loss, we consider that the impact of the HS2 route on ancient woods and trees across the UK landscape is wholly unacceptable.
Any transport system that destroys irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland can never be called 'green'."
I take more notice of the Woodland Trust than a blinkered trainspotters' magazine.
New Hampshire: I've just been looking through the number of field offices. Intriguingly, it's not Sanders or Buttigieg who have the most (six each), but Warren (with seven).
Could she surprise us this evening?
I was wondering what on earth they needed so many for, and then I realised that New Hampshire is larger than Wales.
Frankly, if Warren can't win New Hampshire, or at least come close, what is the point of her candidacy? Can she really hope to beat Trump, after having finished third in the delegate race, but sneaking in as the acceptable compromise between Sanders and A Moderate?
"Let’s clarify the ancient woodlands question. The emerging new Lower Thames motorway crossing (14 miles) takes 54 hectares of such woodland, while the entire 345 miles of HS2 takes just 58 hectares. A House of Lords committee has commented: “The loss of less than one hectare of ancient woodland from about 11,000 in the Chiltern AoNB is, we consider, a remarkable achievement.” Let’s answer this definitively. It is claimed that the whole HS2 route from London to Leeds and Manchester will have an impact on just 0.01% of our ancient woodlands - that’s just one ten-thousandth of ALL the UK’s ancient woodland. Opponents give the impression of much greater impact."
What the Woodland Trust says:
"While we are in favour of green transport and not against high speed rail projects in principle, we are strongly opposed to the HS2 route.
With at least 108 ancient woods being subject to damage and loss, we consider that the impact of the HS2 route on ancient woods and trees across the UK landscape is wholly unacceptable.
Any transport system that destroys irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland can never be called 'green'."
I take more notice of the Woodland Trust than a blinkered trainspotters' magazine.
Why? The Woodland Trust are just as blinkered and they are notorious for their hysterical propaganda. They even claimed at one time that HS2 would be more damaging to woodland than the First World War.
Edit - I find on a careful check I am not correct and they claimed it would be the most damage to woodland since World War I. Which is still hysterical bullshit with 994 housing developments in ancient woodland last year, but not quite as hysterical as I thought.
Bernie is 2.5 to be the Dem nominee but that is because of other moderate nominees not because of other progressives.
I will put it another way.
If you are the leading Republican bar Trump you have next to zero chance of getting the nomination because he is a lock.
But if you are the leading progressive bar Bernie you have a chance of getting the nomination that is much higher than next to zero - because Bernie is anything but a lock and if he does not make it for whatever reason and the party still wants a progressive you are in prime position.
That's all I'm saying. 100/1 for POTUS too high IMO.
Don't, Philip, please.
I'm sorry but I disagree. People make a logical fallacy of believing that just because something is the second most-likely of one of a range of scenarios then it is more likely than it truly is. That same fallacy led to many people arguing here that Leicester were value for the league title when they were 1 point ahead of City and over 10 points behind Liverpool in December.
Rolling a six on a fair dice is the joint-most-likely chance of occuring, but if you roll a dice three times in a row the odds of rolling three 6's is not 1%. Its not even half of one percent.
To do the maths on working out whether Warren as the second-most-likely progressive becomes POTUS there are essentially three possibilities to work through. All of these must come true in order for Warren to become President.
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee: a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive? b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders? c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
"Let’s clarify the ancient woodlands question. The emerging new Lower Thames motorway crossing (14 miles) takes 54 hectares of such woodland, while the entire 345 miles of HS2 takes just 58 hectares. A House of Lords committee has commented: “The loss of less than one hectare of ancient woodland from about 11,000 in the Chiltern AoNB is, we consider, a remarkable achievement.” Let’s answer this definitively. It is claimed that the whole HS2 route from London to Leeds and Manchester will have an impact on just 0.01% of our ancient woodlands - that’s just one ten-thousandth of ALL the UK’s ancient woodland. Opponents give the impression of much greater impact."
What the Woodland Trust says:
"While we are in favour of green transport and not against high speed rail projects in principle, we are strongly opposed to the HS2 route.
With at least 108 ancient woods being subject to damage and loss, we consider that the impact of the HS2 route on ancient woods and trees across the UK landscape is wholly unacceptable.
Any transport system that destroys irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland can never be called 'green'."
I take more notice of the Woodland Trust than a blinkered trainspotters' magazine.
Why? The Woodland Trust are just as blinkered and they are notorious for their hysterical propaganda. They even claimed at one time that HS2 would be more damaging to woodland than the First World War.
The Woodland Trust is a registered charity. It therefore has to abide by certain rules and regulations in its actions and publications.
Spottermag is not. They can peddle any line they want that suits their agenda. Which is pro-HS2 cos they want to spot some sexy new super-fast trains.
That's why I take more notice of the former than the latter.
"Let’s clarify the ancient woodlands question. The emerging new Lower Thames motorway crossing (14 miles) takes 54 hectares of such woodland, while the entire 345 miles of HS2 takes just 58 hectares. A House of Lords committee has commented: “The loss of less than one hectare of ancient woodland from about 11,000 in the Chiltern AoNB is, we consider, a remarkable achievement.” Let’s answer this definitively. It is claimed that the whole HS2 route from London to Leeds and Manchester will have an impact on just 0.01% of our ancient woodlands - that’s just one ten-thousandth of ALL the UK’s ancient woodland. Opponents give the impression of much greater impact."
What the Woodland Trust says:
"While we are in favour of green transport and not against high speed rail projects in principle, we are strongly opposed to the HS2 route.
With at least 108 ancient woods being subject to damage and loss, we consider that the impact of the HS2 route on ancient woods and trees across the UK landscape is wholly unacceptable.
Any transport system that destroys irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland can never be called 'green'."
I take more notice of the Woodland Trust than a blinkered trainspotters' magazine.
Why? The Woodland Trust are just as blinkered and they are notorious for their hysterical propaganda. They even claimed at one time that HS2 would be more damaging to woodland than the First World War.
Edit - I find on a careful check I am not correct and they claimed it would be the most damage to woodland since World War I. Which is still hysterical bullshit with 994 housing developments in ancient woodland last year, but not quite as hysterical as I thought.
I would be in favour of rerouting HS2 through more "Ancient Woodland" - just to enjoy the screaming from the clowns.
The same clowns who can never find answers to simple questions like - "What is the ideal population for each country in the world?"
"Let’s clarify the ancient woodlands question. The emerging new Lower Thames motorway crossing (14 miles) takes 54 hectares of such woodland, while the entire 345 miles of HS2 takes just 58 hectares. A House of Lords committee has commented: “The loss of less than one hectare of ancient woodland from about 11,000 in the Chiltern AoNB is, we consider, a remarkable achievement.” Let’s answer this definitively. It is claimed that the whole HS2 route from London to Leeds and Manchester will have an impact on just 0.01% of our ancient woodlands - that’s just one ten-thousandth of ALL the UK’s ancient woodland. Opponents give the impression of much greater impact."
What the Woodland Trust says:
"While we are in favour of green transport and not against high speed rail projects in principle, we are strongly opposed to the HS2 route.
With at least 108 ancient woods being subject to damage and loss, we consider that the impact of the HS2 route on ancient woods and trees across the UK landscape is wholly unacceptable.
Any transport system that destroys irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland can never be called 'green'."
I take more notice of the Woodland Trust than a blinkered trainspotters' magazine.
Why? The Woodland Trust are just as blinkered and they are notorious for their hysterical propaganda. They even claimed at one time that HS2 would be more damaging to woodland than the First World War.
Edit - I find on a careful check I am not correct and they claimed it would be the most damage to woodland since World War I. Which is still hysterical bullshit with 994 housing developments in ancient woodland last year, but not quite as hysterical as I thought.
I would be in favour of rerouting HS2 through more "Ancient Woodland" - just to enjoy the screaming from the clowns.
The same clowns who can never find answers to simple questions like - "What is the ideal population for each country in the world?"
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
Watching the BBC4 rerun of This Life, I notice Gervais is credited as “music advisor”. I believe he was girlfriend of the producer at the time. She gave him his first break.
My private theory is that he was (one of) University College London's drug dealers, thus explaining how he got the job of events manager and hence the This Life gig.
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee: a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive? b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders? c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
I am confused the eco-warriors are against HS2, but I thought they wanted us out of the cars / planes and onto trains?
AFAICT they want us to stop moving altogether.
I once encountered an honest version of this tribe. She stated that what she wanted was a world where all humans lived in vast, virtually self contained tower blocks. Work would be allocated by the state - and would largely be done by teleworking. Food would be rationed and provided. The majority of the earth would be off limits to all - except the elite wardens of nature....
She was puzzled by my enthusiasm for such a future and my interest in participating in law enforcement in a such an environment.
The Woodland Trust is a registered charity. It therefore has to abide by certain rules and regulations in its actions and publications.
Spottermag is not. They can peddle any line they want that suits their agenda. Which is pro-HS2 cos they want to spot some sexy new super-fast trains.
That's why I take more notice of the former than the latter.
The Woodland Trust is perfectly entitled to tell whatever lies it likes to further its aims, which are the preservation of ancient woodland. The RSPCA, for example, infamously trains its inspectors to misrepresent their powers and where they deem necessary, commit perjury.
What it is not entitled to do is campaign for any particular party, but as this is not a party matter, that doesn’t apply.
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
I personally think it's worth the £1.5bn and 18 months to be rid of Huawei from our infrastructure. I'd go as far as banning their phones and modems as well. Just be done with them as a company.
I am confused the eco-warriors are against HS2, but I thought they wanted us out of the cars / planes and onto trains?
AFAICT they want us to stop moving altogether.
I once encountered an honest version of this tribe. She stated that what she wanted was a world where all humans lived in vast, virtually self contained tower blocks. Work would be allocated by the state - and would largely be done by teleworking. Food would be rationed and provided. The majority of the earth would be off limits to all - except the elite wardens of nature....
She was puzzled by my enthusiasm for such a future and my interest in participating in law enforcement in a such an environment.
Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the Climate - Stuart Basden (Extinction Rebellion co-founder)
Bernie is 2.5 to be the Dem nominee but that is because of other moderate nominees not because of other progressives.
I will put it another way.
If you are the leading Republican bar Trump you have next to zero chance of getting the nomination because he is a lock.
But if you are the leading progressive bar Bernie you have a chance of getting the nomination that is much higher than next to zero - because Bernie is anything but a lock and if he does not make it for whatever reason and the party still wants a progressive you are in prime position.
That's all I'm saying. 100/1 for POTUS too high IMO.
Don't, Philip, please.
I'm sorry but I disagree. People make a logical fallacy of believing that just because something is the second most-likely of one of a range of scenarios then it is more likely than it truly is. That same fallacy led to many people arguing here that Leicester were value for the league title when they were 1 point ahead of City and over 10 points behind Liverpool in December.
Rolling a six on a fair dice is the joint-most-likely chance of occuring, but if you roll a dice three times in a row the odds of rolling three 6's is not 1%. Its not even half of one percent.
To do the maths on working out whether Warren as the second-most-likely progressive becomes POTUS there are essentially three possibilities to work through. All of these must come true in order for Warren to become President.
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee: a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive? b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders? c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I think my estimates would be:
40% 20% - either a Sanders health issue or a brokered convention make it more likely than 10% 33% - because while I think Trump would be clear favourite, I don't think she'd be that bad
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
I personally think it's worth the £1.5bn and 18 months to be rid of Huawei from our infrastructure. I'd go as far as banning their phones and modems as well. Just be done with them as a company.
Does this intelligence state that Huawei can get this access in 45 minutes or less?
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
I personally think it's worth the £1.5bn and 18 months to be rid of Huawei from our infrastructure. I'd go as far as banning their phones and modems as well. Just be done with them as a company.
It might all be too late, given we still have the issue of the likes of Tencent to deal with...who are well embedded into all sorts of companies. Bit like...
CIA scored intelligence 'coup of the century' by owning firm that sold code-making machines used by 120 countries - allowing them to read their enemies' (and allies') communications for DECADES
The CIA were able to read the secret messages of allies and enemies for decades after buying a Swiss company that owned the machines responsible for encrypting their codes.
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
I personally think it's worth the £1.5bn and 18 months to be rid of Huawei from our infrastructure. I'd go as far as banning their phones and modems as well. Just be done with them as a company.
It might all be too late, given we still have the issue of the likes of Tencent to deal with...who are well embedded into all sorts of companies.
Tencent is a listed company, it's in the private sector and is ultimately predictable because of that. Huawei is owned by a workers union that is run by officials from the PLA.
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
I personally think it's worth the £1.5bn and 18 months to be rid of Huawei from our infrastructure. I'd go as far as banning their phones and modems as well. Just be done with them as a company.
It might all be too late, given we still have the issue of the likes of Tencent to deal with...who are well embedded into all sorts of companies.
Tencent is a listed company, it's in the private sector and is ultimately predictable because of that. Huawei is owned by a workers union that is run by officials from the PLA.
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
Why do you believe the US government and not the UK's NCSC?
If you don't trust the NCSC on this then we are literally incapable as a country of deciding which suppliers are safe and to what degree so.
As we saw with Iraq and the JIC, supposedly neutral spooks can be intimidated to provide intelligence/analysis that happens to fit the view of the Prime Minister.
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
Why do you believe the US government and not the UK's NCSC?
If you don't trust the NCSC on this then we are literally incapable as a country of deciding which suppliers are safe and to what degree so.
Honestly, I think our intelligence service is far, far too complacent when it comes to China. Maybe the US is too far on the alarmist side, but I'd rather be safe with this.
I personally think it's worth the £1.5bn and 18 months to be rid of Huawei from our infrastructure. I'd go as far as banning their phones and modems as well. Just be done with them as a company.
I'd be entirely happy with that with two conditions. 1 - Ericsson and Nokia must allow the same scrutiny of their systems as Huawei does. 2 - If the US government obtains a controlling interest in those two companies we should immediately start looking for another supplier.
Bernie is 2.5 to be the Dem nominee but that is because of other moderate nominees not because of other progressives.
I will put it another way.
If you are the leading Republican bar Trump you have next to zero chance of getting the nomination because he is a lock.
But if you are the leading progressive bar Bernie you have a chance of getting the nomination that is much higher than next to zero - because Bernie is anything but a lock and if he does not make it for whatever reason and the party still wants a progressive you are in prime position.
That's all I'm saying. 100/1 for POTUS too high IMO.
Don't, Philip, please.
I'm sorry but I disagree. People make a logical fallacy of believing that just because something is the second most-likely of one of a range of scenarios then it is more likely than it truly is. That same fallacy led to many people arguing here that Leicester were value for the league title when they were 1 point ahead of City and over 10 points behind Liverpool in December.
Rolling a six on a fair dice is the joint-most-likely chance of occuring, but if you roll a dice three times in a row the odds of rolling three 6's is not 1%. Its not even half of one percent.
To do the maths on working out whether Warren as the second-most-likely progressive becomes POTUS there are essentially three possibilities to work through. All of these must come true in order for Warren to become President.
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee: a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive? b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders? c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
Isn't it just that you two disagree strongly on the values of a, b and/or c?
While I don't share kinabalu's confidence that Trump cannot win again, 25% is too low for c. 35% is pessimistic. Mind you that only gets you from 100/1 to about 70/1.
See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
If I may politely demur.
I started to go off Gervais around series 2 of Extras when his career changed direction. A large strand of British comedy used to be about the underdog or people trapped in difficult situations. - Hancock's Half Hour, Steptoe and Son, Butterflies, Only Fools and Horses, etc. And indeed, The Office is a prime example of such.
But round about Extras series 2 his comedy stopped being that and became about the problems of success - not giving money to beggars, art vs fame, etc. And he then developed it into mocking the unsuccessful: his act became a recitation of his successes, his contribution to Comic Relief consisted of travelling the world and spending money on himself. He then developed it further, turning his act into a stream of abuse of anybody he disdained.
This is to an extent understandable: his quieter comic performances such as "The Invention of Lying" (which I genuinely like) or "Derek" were not successful, and if his art pushes him in the direction of polemic, so be it: the muse always wins and the artist goes where he must.
But I think it's stunted him and made him misanthropic. I don't think he could bring the sweetness or empathy necessary for a characterisation these days: his David Brent revival died on its arse, and his latest series "After Life" seems to (I've only seen clips) consist of engaging with straw man arguments.
So although he will enjoy a rather well-renumerated career in the coming years insulting those the Spectator crowd have designated as targets, I think it's messed him up.
Boris will accept Heathrow expansion within a year. He's carefully laying a route for his retreat,
I worry Mrs Boris being a greenie and appears to be more than willing to stick her oar into government matters might ensure he doesn't. When it is clear Heathrow needs expanding, and will be worth a huge amount to the UK economy.
If we are going to have a go at charities can I add public schools to the list?
And that would be news how, exactly? You do already! Mysteriously, your belief in the purity of charities does not seem to extend to them...
I’m just bewildered that you think charities are somehow beacons of integrity. Most of them really, really aren’t. I have been Secretary to three charities and had to pick up the pieces from other charities who left chaos in their wake, and worked for a fourth until I couldn’t stand their criminality any more, so I know what I’m talking about!
The Woodland Trust are simply a bunch of single issue fanatics. Yes, they do good and important work in many ways. But they are not reliable or neutral. More to the point, they appear not to know the key issues they are dealing with.
U.S. Officials Say Huawei Can Covertly Access Telecom Networks
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
I personally think it's worth the £1.5bn and 18 months to be rid of Huawei from our infrastructure. I'd go as far as banning their phones and modems as well. Just be done with them as a company.
It might all be too late, given we still have the issue of the likes of Tencent to deal with...who are well embedded into all sorts of companies.
Tencent is a listed company, it's in the private sector and is ultimately predictable because of that. Huawei is owned by a workers union that is run by officials from the PLA.
I am not sure I trust either.
I don't trust Tencent, but it is a profit seeking company with shareholders to answer to. It's also a company that has previously explored shifting its national HQ to Hong Kong or Singapore to escape Chinese jurisdiction. I think the decision to stay in China was based on a huge loss of business from nationalistic Chinese consumers.
Probably because of our stupid Huawei decision. We can't defend it easily among hay crowd, I think France are going to exclude Huawei from 5G and try and take advantage of our stupid decision not to.
Comments
Why does *anyone* not from the central office still have access to the national database, after the election?
And when it comes to wider identity politics / freedom of speech again the likes of Tom Walker / Andrew Doyle have found common ground with your Douglas Murray's of this world.
If it's a central bank delivery mechanism then that central bank is responsible.
Failed delivery terms are very draconian.
I'd be very interested to see your source on failed delivery being something the central banks had to step into - the rules are very clear.
Not posted for a year or so.
"Among caucusgoers who cared more about candidates’ positions than about electability, only 5 percent chose him."
Once the "electability" element is taken away from Biden, he has nothing.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1227311448151543808
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1227317360866086913
By 2019, Corbyn had torched what there was of his reputation by proving that criticism of his past as completely disqualifying was justified with stuff like his actions on the Skripals, and it becoming apparent he had serious issues with antisemitism rather than historical quirks. He had managed to frustrate remainers and leavers by not signalling any true intention on Brexit. Plus the far left had taken over Labour, while bullying out many moderates, so it was impossible to argue with any real persuasive power that a vote for Labour wasn't necessarily a vote for the dreadful people in charge of it. In 2017, you could still tell yourself you were voting for the party of John Woodcock or Mike Gapes, not to mention the questions raised by Berger and Ellman's exit were yet to be posed. Not in 2019. If you voted Labour it meant very much owning what you were voting for - and for enough 2017 it was just too repugnant. That and the notion those dreadful people might be running the country, drained that pool of sceptical Labour voters away to the Lib Dems and Tories.
https://www.cnet.com/news/with-galaxy-s20-ultra-samsung-takes-the-lead-in-5g-zoom-cameras-8k-120hz-and-more/
In theory, if I light a cigarette in a building and ask you if you're OK with it, if you agree you and I are guilty of conspiracy, which I believe has a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In practice...not so much.
What I don't know is how widespread it is. It's clear that this site suffers from confirmation bias (I'm being diplomatic here) when discussing the Labour left. I will find out for myself soon enough.
https://www.railmagazine.com/research-hub/comment/comment-special-let-s-get-hs2-done
Whether it was made for the right reasons is another question.
Your obsession with Apple is bizarre.
If you don’t like Apple products, don’t buy them.
It really is that simple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encouraging_or_assisting_a_crime_in_English_law
I don't know how they are calculated for non-profit making enterprises.
I would never pay such money for a phone, I am happy with my 6s Plus, which still has a 3.5mm audio port.
But really, different strokes for different folks. Find something worthwhile to rant about.
It’s Pete Buttigieg or Donald Trump.
Does that help?
IMVHO, the UK desperately needs to JFDI when it comes to infrastructure. Every year spent talking about these things is another year where the productivity gains from them not being open is lost. Depreciate the cost over 50 years for a railway, and think how many smelly lorries get off the M1 and M6 once the capacity exists for more rail freight.
Now, have the balls to build two new runways at Heathrow.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/28-scenarios-for-what-things-could-look-like-after-new-hampshire/
If the result tonight is Buttigieg-Sanders-Warren, then I can't believe that Biden will still be a greater probability of getting the nomination than Buttigieg.
I’m a two-device guy, have the iPad set up so that I can work in a coffee shop or a pub, a lot of my work is Remote Desktop into computers which is a complete pain on a phone.
Incidentally I was told off recently for calling them peasant wagons, apparently I come across as snobby, condescending, and elitist when I call buses 'peasant wagons'.
Some people really don't know me .
Meanwhile it is absolutely scathing about this £106 billion estimate that third rate retard Cummings leaked and the media have uncritically swallowed:
The Review considered a cost estimate of the HS2 project that has been developed by an external consultant. This estimate sets out a total cost of £106.6bn in Q4 2015 prices for the HS2 project. The Review commissioned a comparative analysis of this external consultant’s cost estimate and the cost estimates developed by HS2 Ltd for Phase One. Evidence provided by Network Rail to the Review indicated that major rail infrastructure cost plans generally exhibit certain characteristics. Such characteristics were not evident in the estimate developed by the external consultant in that it seemed to the Review that the amounts allocated towards major construction works were too low, and the amounts allocated towards rail systems seemed too high. This view was confirmed by evidence provided to the Review by Network Rail. (P.60)
Full report is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/864842/oakervee-review.pdf
In any case, based on the reports so far, it appears that the rules which were broken were internal party rules. In the sense that the candidates will have access to the databases once the proper contest starts, but have been banned from contacting supporters until then, presumably to stop them lobbying CLPs for support. In which case I guess it's unclear that a referral to the IC was even necessary? Which could imply a (very sensible) safety-first policy, or evidence that it's just a dirty tricks campaign targeting Starmer.
Plus don't forget there were certainly a lot of young and enthusiastic volunteers attracted to the Labour Party in 2017 and although plenty if not all were still there, there were no more in 2019.
It won't get people out of cars and planes.
But will destroy ancient woodlands.
👀
that ydoethur posted below:
"Let’s clarify the ancient woodlands question. The emerging new Lower Thames motorway crossing (14 miles) takes 54 hectares of such woodland, while the entire 345 miles of HS2 takes just 58 hectares. A House of Lords committee has commented: “The loss of less than one hectare of ancient woodland from about 11,000 in the Chiltern AoNB is, we consider, a remarkable achievement.” Let’s answer this definitively. It is claimed that the whole HS2 route from London to Leeds and Manchester will have an impact on just 0.01% of our ancient woodlands - that’s just one ten-thousandth of ALL the UK’s ancient woodland. Opponents give the impression of much greater impact."
Could she surprise us this evening?
One example of environmental impacts is the impact on woodlands, for which HS2 Ltd have put in place repair and compensation measures. On Phase One, this includes the planting of 112.5 hectares of woodland in response to the direct loss of 29.4 hectares of ancient woodland. For Phase 2a, compensation measures to address the direct loss of 10.2 hectares of ancient woodland include the planting of 77.1 hectares of woodland. Similar figures are not yet available for Phase 2b given its current lack of maturity, although the Review has seen evidence to suggest that at least 10 ancient woodlands will be affected. The Review recognised however that planting new woodland is not a direct replacement for removing areas of ancient woodland.
You see, delegates are awarded at the district level. And you need 15% to get any delegates.
The First Congressional District, which is older, wealthier and more Republican leaning, looks tailor-made to give Buttigieg votes. It also could well see the other moderates fail to get 15%. You could therefore see only Sanders and Buttigieg pick up delegates here. If it were (say) 30% Buttigieg, 28% Sanders in the district, then he would pick up a comfortable majority of the delegates. (Say 8 Buttigieg, 6 Sanders). Being more Republican, it's also likely to see a lower turnout for the Primary.
If in the Second Congressional District Sanders were to win with a good margin over Buttigieg, but Klobuchar and Warren both make the 15% hurdle, then the impact of Sanders win would be smaller. (Sanders 4, Buttigieg 3, Klobuchar 3, Warren 2).,
So, Buttigieg could end up with the most delegates despite being well behind Sanders (say 29% to 24%) in vote share.
"While we are in favour of green transport and not against high speed rail projects in principle, we are strongly opposed to the HS2 route.
With at least 108 ancient woods being subject to damage and loss, we consider that the impact of the HS2 route on ancient woods and trees across the UK landscape is wholly unacceptable.
Any transport system that destroys irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland can never be called 'green'."
I take more notice of the Woodland Trust than a blinkered trainspotters' magazine.
Frankly, if Warren can't win New Hampshire, or at least come close, what is the point of her candidacy? Can she really hope to beat Trump, after having finished third in the delegate race, but sneaking in as the acceptable compromise between Sanders and A Moderate?
Edit - I find on a careful check I am not correct and they claimed it would be the most damage to woodland since World War I. Which is still hysterical bullshit with 994 housing developments in ancient woodland last year, but not quite as hysterical as I thought.
Rolling a six on a fair dice is the joint-most-likely chance of occuring, but if you roll a dice three times in a row the odds of rolling three 6's is not 1%. Its not even half of one percent.
To do the maths on working out whether Warren as the second-most-likely progressive becomes POTUS there are essentially three possibilities to work through. All of these must come true in order for Warren to become President.
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
Spottermag is not. They can peddle any line they want that suits their agenda. Which is pro-HS2 cos they want to spot some sexy new super-fast trains.
That's why I take more notice of the former than the latter.
The same clowns who can never find answers to simple questions like - "What is the ideal population for each country in the world?"
Trump administration ramps up push for allies to block Chinese company
U.S. officials say Huawei Technologies Co. can covertly access mobile-phone networks around the world through “back doors” designed for use by law enforcement, as Washington tries to persuade allies to exclude the Chinese company from their networks.
Intelligence shows Huawei has had this secret capability for more than a decade, U.S. officials said. Huawei rejected the allegations.
The U.S. kept the intelligence highly classified until late last year, when American officials provided details to allies including the U.K. and Germany, according to officials from the three countries. That was a tactical turnabout by the U.S., which in the past had argued that it didn’t need to produce hard evidence of the threat it says Huawei poses to nations’ security.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-officials-say-huawei-can-covertly-access-telecom-networks-11581452256
Turns out Boris Johnson is a bigger threat to national security than Jeremy Corbyn.
She was puzzled by my enthusiasm for such a future and my interest in participating in law enforcement in a such an environment.
What it is not entitled to do is campaign for any particular party, but as this is not a party matter, that doesn’t apply.
https://medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate-42a0a73d9d49
40%
20% - either a Sanders health issue or a brokered convention make it more likely than 10%
33% - because while I think Trump would be clear favourite, I don't think she'd be that bad
Which comes out at about 33-1.
CIA scored intelligence 'coup of the century' by owning firm that sold code-making machines used by 120 countries - allowing them to read their enemies' (and allies') communications for DECADES
The CIA were able to read the secret messages of allies and enemies for decades after buying a Swiss company that owned the machines responsible for encrypting their codes.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7992175/CIA-secretly-OWNED-encrypted-code-making-machines-decades-allowing-spy-governments.html
The PM, who once vowed to "lie down" in front of bulldozers to stop the project, says he does not see any "at present".
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-no-immediate-prospect-of-heathrow-expansion-11931612
If you don't trust the NCSC on this then we are literally incapable as a country of deciding which suppliers are safe and to what degree so.
While I don't share kinabalu's confidence that Trump cannot win again, 25% is too low for c. 35% is pessimistic. Mind you that only gets you from 100/1 to about 70/1.
I started to go off Gervais around series 2 of Extras when his career changed direction. A large strand of British comedy used to be about the underdog or people trapped in difficult situations. - Hancock's Half Hour, Steptoe and Son, Butterflies, Only Fools and Horses, etc. And indeed, The Office is a prime example of such.
But round about Extras series 2 his comedy stopped being that and became about the problems of success - not giving money to beggars, art vs fame, etc. And he then developed it into mocking the unsuccessful: his act became a recitation of his successes, his contribution to Comic Relief consisted of travelling the world and spending money on himself. He then developed it further, turning his act into a stream of abuse of anybody he disdained.
This is to an extent understandable: his quieter comic performances such as "The Invention of Lying" (which I genuinely like) or "Derek" were not successful, and if his art pushes him in the direction of polemic, so be it: the muse always wins and the artist goes where he must.
But I think it's stunted him and made him misanthropic. I don't think he could bring the sweetness or empathy necessary for a characterisation these days: his David Brent revival died on its arse, and his latest series "After Life" seems to (I've only seen clips) consist of engaging with straw man arguments.
So although he will enjoy a rather well-renumerated career in the coming years insulting those the Spectator crowd have designated as targets, I think it's messed him up.
I’m just bewildered that you think charities are somehow beacons of integrity. Most of them really, really aren’t. I have been Secretary to three charities and had to pick up the pieces from other charities who left chaos in their wake, and worked for a fourth until I couldn’t stand their criminality any more, so I know what I’m talking about!
The Woodland Trust are simply a bunch of single issue fanatics. Yes, they do good and important work in many ways. But they are not reliable or neutral. More to the point, they appear not to know the key issues they are dealing with.
https://twitter.com/AliBunkallSKY/status/1227201201365831682
https://twitter.com/AliBunkallSKY/status/1227205456256544768