2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
I don't remember seeing that on a bus. Vote Brexit to make Cod and Chips cost a tenner but here, have Herring and Chips instead for your usual fiver. What do you mean you don't like Herring?
Basic problem is that punters don't know what fish swim locally. "Cod and Chips" must be British after Brexit, yes? No - not unless we're going to force them to swim here from Iceland...
Re my attempt to contact the Gambling Commission about Betfair's failure to settle the outstanding Presidential markets, it seems that due to Covid their lines are not open today. Will try again tomorrow. Meanwhile I would appreciate any information and updates concerning the status of legal challenges etc affecting the unsettled markets.
Please email if it's easier: arklebar@gmail.com
Thanks
I normally look on twitter at this chap -- twitter.com/marceelias
Whatever happened to the day when nobody had to ask if Edwina Currie famed eggs or if John Gummer had a burger factory. This government gives 3rd world corrupt dictators a bad name.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
Be honest, the whole Scotch Egg thing is just a massive distraction activity to prevent any real assessment of government policy, isn't it ?
It's certainly effective. Most of the Today program discussion of the plight of the hospitality trade this morning was sidelined into banter about the relative merits of the eggs and Cornish pasties.
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
Because it all started with questions about bloody Scotch eggs in the first place. The concept of a substantial meal is not something dreamt up in the last few weeks.
Which is the media's prerogative, I don't think asking questions about what does and doesn't constitute a substantial meal is somehow wrong. It's also not the media's fault that the government didn't get a line ready on the specifics of scotch eggs after Eustace said they counted. We have Gove saying they aren't yesterday but today he's saying they are, how does the media take the blame there?
It's actually the kind of scrutiny that makes sense because it puts the fairly vague "substantial meal" into context of actual food. To my mind it's been useful to find out that a scotch egg is a substantial meal, and ideally that means pasties and sausage rolls are too. It's actually more clear now what constitutes a substantial meal because the media asked the questions, that the government fluffed it's lines isn't their fault.
I am personally looking forward to my substantial pub meal of Scotch Eggs and Pork Scratchings and beer and wine as a soon to be Tier 2 resident, I may even push the boat out and add a course of garlic bread
Originally aimed at the Callaghan government, it was far more appositely used to describe the Thatcherite majorities of the 80s, elected by minorities of the voting public.
Whatever happened to the day when nobody had to ask if Edwina Currie famed eggs or if John Gummer had a burger factory. This government gives 3rd world corrupt dictators a bad name.
Be honest, the whole Scotch Egg thing is just a massive distraction activity to prevent any real assessment of government policy, isn't it ?
It's certainly effective. Most of the Today program discussion of the plight of the hospitality trade this morning was sidelined into banter about the relative merits of the eggs and Cornish pasties.
Yes, but at the same time it's actually provided more clarity over what I can and can't get drinks with on Saturday afternoon when I meet my friends at the pub.
Be honest, the whole Scotch Egg thing is just a massive distraction activity to prevent any real assessment of government policy, isn't it ?
It's certainly effective. Most of the Today program discussion of the plight of the hospitality trade this morning was sidelined into banter about the relative merits of the eggs and Cornish pasties.
Yes, but at the same time it's actually provided more clarity over what I can and can't get drinks with on Saturday afternoon when I meet my friends at the pub.
You're not allowed to meet your friends at the pub unless you live in Tier 1 though. I guess you could sit outside.
Be honest, the whole Scotch Egg thing is just a massive distraction activity to prevent any real assessment of government policy, isn't it ?
It's certainly effective. Most of the Today program discussion of the plight of the hospitality trade this morning was sidelined into banter about the relative merits of the eggs and Cornish pasties.
Yes, but at the same time it's actually provided more clarity over what I can and can't get drinks with on Saturday afternoon when I meet my friends at the pub.
You're not allowed to meet your friends at the pub unless you live in Tier 1 though. I guess you could sit outside.
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
Because it all started with questions about bloody Scotch eggs in the first place. The concept of a substantial meal is not something dreamt up in the last few weeks.
Which is the media's prerogative, I don't think asking questions about what does and doesn't constitute a substantial meal is somehow wrong. It's also not the media's fault that the government didn't get a line ready on the specifics of scotch eggs after Eustace said they counted. We have Gove saying they aren't yesterday but today he's saying they are, how does the media take the blame there?
It's actually the kind of scrutiny that makes sense because it puts the fairly vague "substantial meal" into context of actual food. To my mind it's been useful to find out that a scotch egg is a substantial meal, and ideally that means pasties and sausage rolls are too. It's actually more clear now what constitutes a substantial meal because the media asked the questions, that the government fluffed it's lines isn't their fault.
It’s the media’s obsession with banal trivialities, at the expense of 100 more important things going on in the world today.
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
Because it all started with questions about bloody Scotch eggs in the first place. The concept of a substantial meal is not something dreamt up in the last few weeks.
Which is the media's prerogative, I don't think asking questions about what does and doesn't constitute a substantial meal is somehow wrong. It's also not the media's fault that the government didn't get a line ready on the specifics of scotch eggs after Eustace said they counted. We have Gove saying they aren't yesterday but today he's saying they are, how does the media take the blame there?
It's actually the kind of scrutiny that makes sense because it puts the fairly vague "substantial meal" into context of actual food. To my mind it's been useful to find out that a scotch egg is a substantial meal, and ideally that means pasties and sausage rolls are too. It's actually more clear now what constitutes a substantial meal because the media asked the questions, that the government fluffed it's lines isn't their fault.
I am personally looking forward to my substantial pub meal of Scotch Eggs and Pork Scratchings and beer and wine as a soon to be Tier 2 resident
Fknhell, Scotch Eggs and Pork Scratchings and beer and wine? Wouldn't want to be cleaning out your hamster cage (assuming that that combo doesn't reemerge into the world by the alternative route).
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
Because it all started with questions about bloody Scotch eggs in the first place. The concept of a substantial meal is not something dreamt up in the last few weeks.
Which is the media's prerogative, I don't think asking questions about what does and doesn't constitute a substantial meal is somehow wrong. It's also not the media's fault that the government didn't get a line ready on the specifics of scotch eggs after Eustace said they counted. We have Gove saying they aren't yesterday but today he's saying they are, how does the media take the blame there?
It's actually the kind of scrutiny that makes sense because it puts the fairly vague "substantial meal" into context of actual food. To my mind it's been useful to find out that a scotch egg is a substantial meal, and ideally that means pasties and sausage rolls are too. It's actually more clear now what constitutes a substantial meal because the media asked the questions, that the government fluffed it's lines isn't their fault.
Balls. It's The Great British Sausage, straight out of Yes Minister. Serves government purposes rather well.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
1975 to 2016 isn't one generation it was two generations.
If you want to divide it nicely then 1973 to 1993 (20 years of EEC membership) could make one generation, while 1993 to 2020 (27 years of EU membership) is another.
You seem to be putting 2014 as the starting point of a generation but that makes no sense. It occured in the last generation, the generation of EU membership that is now over.
We are starting a new generation now. Post Brexit is like Picard, it is The Next Generation.
Be honest, the whole Scotch Egg thing is just a massive distraction activity to prevent any real assessment of government policy, isn't it ?
It's certainly effective. Most of the Today program discussion of the plight of the hospitality trade this morning was sidelined into banter about the relative merits of the eggs and Cornish pasties.
Yes, but at the same time it's actually provided more clarity over what I can and can't get drinks with on Saturday afternoon when I meet my friends at the pub.
You're not allowed to meet your friends at the pub unless you live in Tier 1 though. I guess you could sit outside.
F1: I'm content to have laid Bottas and Verstappen having luckily been online to immediately hear of Hamilton's absence, and back the aforementioned pair at longer odds.
However, Betfair has them at 2.46 and 2.6 or so. One of them, barring woe, should win. The odds are still a bit long.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
1975 to 2016 isn't one generation it was two generations.
If you want to divide it nicely then 1973 to 1993 (20 years of EEC membership) could make one generation, while 1993 to 2020 (27 years of EU membership) is another.
You seem to be putting 2014 as the starting point of a generation but that makes no sense. It occured in the last generation, the generation of EU membership that is now over.
We are starting a new generation now. Post Brexit is like Picard, it is The Next Generation.
So at a minimum 20 years ie 2034 at the earliest since the 2014 referendum.
As both myself and LadyG have pointed out to you numerous times there is zero chance of this Tory government allowing indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, if Starmer wins in 2024 and grants an indyref2 before that generation has elapsed after an SNP Holyrood majority in 2021 or as he needs SNP backing to become PM that is up to him, we Tories however have a Westminster majority of 80 and will ban indyref2 correctly for the rest of our term in power.
If you disagree with that so strongly you can go off and vote for Starmer
Quite rightly UK politicians are pleased numbers are dropping but there appears early signs that they are dropping across Europe, what makes this virus seem to act in a coordinated way or is it that we all use the same tactics. Still think Xmas relaxation a severe error I think Spain is going for one day with up to ten family members getting together is better.
Basically, waves seem to take 3 months or so. I suspect a lot is due to changes in behaviour, either by law or by caution rather than immunity. These waves burn themselves out, before the next one builds. Christmas is clearly a risk.
Personally, I would have gone with 48 hours from 1800 on 24/12, with the rule of six plus kids. I suspect many or even most would have smaller numbers.
Given the way that so many people seem to be focussing on pushing the boundaries of whatever restrictions are set up, a shorter period with fewer numbers might have been advisable. It seems we can't see a barrier without wanting to get past it, even if that means we fall down a precipice.
I've often wondered about the principle of 14 days' self-isolation when someone you live with contracts the virus. (I was glad to read on the previous thread that your self-isolation period has ended and you're still OK.)
The 14 days seems to assume that if one doesn't catch the virus from one's house-mate right at the start, one won't catch it at all. Can you tell me how that works, please? As a child, I'm sure I remember children picking up illnesses, not at the start of their sibling's illness, but right at the end of the infectious period. Doesn't Covid work like that?
Good morning, everybody.
In theory it should have shown by now, but I had a negative swab to confirm before returning to work.
People can test antigen positive for weeks after infection, but whether that is viable virus, or just scraps of dead virus isn't yet clear.
Be honest, the whole Scotch Egg thing is just a massive distraction activity to prevent any real assessment of government policy, isn't it ?
It's certainly effective. Most of the Today program discussion of the plight of the hospitality trade this morning was sidelined into banter about the relative merits of the eggs and Cornish pasties.
A scotch egg surely doesn't contain enough calories to be a substantial meal. A Cornish pasty certainly does and, indeed, is meant to be a meal in itself. Surely a substantial meal needs to be about a third of your normal daily calorie requirement.
So this rancid government are going to crash the negotiations over fishing which will result in lots of fishermen going under as they’ll lose their biggest market .
It seems as if the penny has finally dropped with some UK fishermen , they now realize that Bozo and the rest of the unhinged cabinet will be throwing them under a bus to engineer a no deal under the guise of allegedly standing up for them.
Whatever happened to the day when nobody had to ask if Edwina Currie famed eggs or if John Gummer had a burger factory. This government gives 3rd world corrupt dictators a bad name.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
This Boomer/Gen X/Millennial shite is...well...just an arbitrary media imposed definition of a "Generation". It's clearly rubbish to say that someone born in 1976 has more in common with someone born in 1966 than with someone born in 1982. People born in 1966 will have some (albeit vague) memories of pre-decimalisation currency, they would have been given a shilling to get some sweets with, people born in 1976 and 1982 have none, they would have been given 20p*. No one born in 1966 regularly used a personal computer at secondary school, BBC Micros were first rolled out into schools in 1982, people born in 1976 (indeed those born in 1974 as I can attest) and 1982 certainly did in increasing amounts through their education. Someone born in 1976 could, if they were in the Sixth Form, briefly have been at secondary school with someone born in 1982, not with someone born in 1966. It's all a load of rubbish.
The only possible meaningful definition of a generation is any rolling 20 year period. The arbitrary distinctions the media divide recent generations into have no meaningful basis in reality. That's not to say that there shouldn't be another referendum in Scotland now but it was ill advised 6 years ago to speak of a "generation".
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Good idea.
Could I suggest Rick Stein as someone to front it?
Pale, male and stale.
I have the perfect candidate, Prue Leith!
Not only female but the mother of a Conservative MP.
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
It reminds me of the 1970s and the "Buy British Cars" campaign. Support our own industry. Of course, the cars were overpriced, unreliable cr*p.
The problem with the "Eat more British fish" idea is that most people have no idea how to cook anything if it does not come with instructions printed on the side of the box. Most people will not touch a fresh fish even if you give them one.
I think you would find microwave meals are more crap than the wonders of the sea.
I love shellfish. If we get cheaper shellfish post Brexit then on a selfish shellfish level that's good news as far as I'm concerned.
It does not matter what you think. You are not typical. Microwave meals are indeed total cr*p but they are easy to cook (instructions on the box) and are full of the fats, salts and sugars that many people love. It is why we have so many obese people waddling around.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
1975 to 2016 isn't one generation it was two generations.
If you want to divide it nicely then 1973 to 1993 (20 years of EEC membership) could make one generation, while 1993 to 2020 (27 years of EU membership) is another.
You seem to be putting 2014 as the starting point of a generation but that makes no sense. It occured in the last generation, the generation of EU membership that is now over.
We are starting a new generation now. Post Brexit is like Picard, it is The Next Generation.
Well, I guess that since the UK has no legislative or constitutional precedents for referendums and political generations, we have to depend on 'interpretations' and selective quotes and foreign examples.
What's that you say?
'POLLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 1
1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order. 2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland. 3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule'
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Good idea.
Could I suggest Rick Stein as someone to front it?
Pale, male and stale.
I have the perfect candidate, Prue Leith!
Not only female but the mother of a Conservative MP.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
It reminds me of the 1970s and the "Buy British Cars" campaign. Support our own industry. Of course, the cars were overpriced, unreliable cr*p.
The problem with the "Eat more British fish" idea is that most people have no idea how to cook anything if it does not come with instructions printed on the side of the box. Most people will not touch a fresh fish even if you give them one.
I think you would find microwave meals are more crap than the wonders of the sea.
I love shellfish. If we get cheaper shellfish post Brexit then on a selfish shellfish level that's good news as far as I'm concerned.
It does not matter what you think. You are not typical. Microwave meals are indeed total cr*p but they are easy to cook (instructions on the box) and are full of the fats, salts and sugars that many people love. It is why we have so many obese people waddling around.
He loves shellfish.
He believes there is no qualitative difference between frozen shellfish and fresh shellfish.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
It reminds me of the 1970s and the "Buy British Cars" campaign. Support our own industry. Of course, the cars were overpriced, unreliable cr*p.
The problem with the "Eat more British fish" idea is that most people have no idea how to cook anything if it does not come with instructions printed on the side of the box. Most people will not touch a fresh fish even if you give them one.
I think you would find microwave meals are more crap than the wonders of the sea.
I love shellfish. If we get cheaper shellfish post Brexit then on a selfish shellfish level that's good news as far as I'm concerned.
It does not matter what you think. You are not typical. Microwave meals are indeed total cr*p but they are easy to cook (instructions on the box) and are full of the fats, salts and sugars that many people love. It is why we have so many obese people waddling around.
Careful, Phil is undoubtedly an expert on all things "oven-ready".
Isn't that Parliament doing its job? We don't have an elective dictatorship.
It absolutely is. But it demonstrates also that the government hasn't a clue what its doing or any confidence in its actions.
If the proposal was clear and would unambiguously save lives with support for business then he would stand firm. You have to vote for this or people die.
Instead we get a load of useless wazzocks sitting in a room throwing a bean bag about coming up with every more absurd ideas. Yes and Ho.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Good idea.
Could I suggest Rick Stein as someone to front it?
Pale, male and stale.
I have the perfect candidate, Prue Leith!
Not only female but the mother of a Conservative MP.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
I don't remember seeing that on a bus. Vote Brexit to make Cod and Chips cost a tenner but here, have Herring and Chips instead for your usual fiver. What do you mean you don't like Herring?
Basic problem is that punters don't know what fish swim locally. "Cod and Chips" must be British after Brexit, yes? No - not unless we're going to force them to swim here from Iceland...
Basic problem is that Brexiters voted Brexit so that things wouldn’t change - or would “unchange” back to how they used to be. Changing their diet to include herring and crab and mackerel was never part of the bargain.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
It reminds me of the 1970s and the "Buy British Cars" campaign. Support our own industry. Of course, the cars were overpriced, unreliable cr*p.
The problem with the "Eat more British fish" idea is that most people have no idea how to cook anything if it does not come with instructions printed on the side of the box. Most people will not touch a fresh fish even if you give them one.
I think you would find microwave meals are more crap than the wonders of the sea.
I love shellfish. If we get cheaper shellfish post Brexit then on a selfish shellfish level that's good news as far as I'm concerned.
It does not matter what you think. You are not typical. Microwave meals are indeed total cr*p but they are easy to cook (instructions on the box) and are full of the fats, salts and sugars that many people love. It is why we have so many obese people waddling around.
When I was still on Facebook in 2016 someone in the vollage I'm connected with shared something that suggested that leaving the EU would just mean we dropped into the EEA. It was at that point that I deactivated my account as there was clearly no hope. It is like pushing water uphill.
There are two main reasons for serving food with drinks:
1. It allows more people through the pub in any given day, which is important as many have reduced capacities. 2. People who are primarily drinking behave differently to those who are primarily eating - and those behavioural differences are a significant factor in the spread of the nasty virus that’s going round!
If only as much ingenuity could be applied to resisting the virus instead of resisting our defences.
Yeah, it really is annoying. It's as if they are willfully ignoring the point of the restrictions.
And the media are giving hundreds of column inches this morning to the parting singer, who clearly saw a £10k fine as just another line item on the cost of her expensive birthday party.
No doubt a fair few others are looking at following the same idea for lavish birthday and Christmas parties - until someone gets dragged into court, and sensibly punished according to their means.
Well there were wedding venues in the summer that added a £10k deposit to their hire charge to pay the fine. I know two weddings that had over 100 people that went ahead, one made the news because it got shut down and they paid the £10k fine. I'm told that the total cost of the wedding was £70-80k and they are pretty well off so the additional £10k wasn't a deal breaker for them. Jail time would have been though, I'm sure, as one of the couple couldn't afford to have any kind of criminal record.
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
I'm not sure that the Gammony magnificence of Sir Edward Leigh is the right member of the Tory party to attack Starmer. However, on this one he has a point - Starmer keeps picking at the long list of failings but isn't packaging them together into either a coherent attack or an alternative strategy.
How is it the media's fault that the government didn't get their line straight on this from the off? As soon as Eustace said it a memo should have gone to all Tory MPs either saying yes they are or no they aren't.
Because it all started with questions about bloody Scotch eggs in the first place. The concept of a substantial meal is not something dreamt up in the last few weeks.
Which is the media's prerogative, I don't think asking questions about what does and doesn't constitute a substantial meal is somehow wrong. It's also not the media's fault that the government didn't get a line ready on the specifics of scotch eggs after Eustace said they counted. We have Gove saying they aren't yesterday but today he's saying they are, how does the media take the blame there?
It's actually the kind of scrutiny that makes sense because it puts the fairly vague "substantial meal" into context of actual food. To my mind it's been useful to find out that a scotch egg is a substantial meal, and ideally that means pasties and sausage rolls are too. It's actually more clear now what constitutes a substantial meal because the media asked the questions, that the government fluffed it's lines isn't their fault.
I am personally looking forward to my substantial pub meal of Scotch Eggs and Pork Scratchings and beer and wine as a soon to be Tier 2 resident, I may even push the boat out and add a course of garlic bread
We`re booked in to our local on Thurs evening - they do a great burger.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
It reminds me of the 1970s and the "Buy British Cars" campaign. Support our own industry. Of course, the cars were overpriced, unreliable cr*p.
The problem with the "Eat more British fish" idea is that most people have no idea how to cook anything if it does not come with instructions printed on the side of the box. Most people will not touch a fresh fish even if you give them one.
I think you would find microwave meals are more crap than the wonders of the sea.
I love shellfish. If we get cheaper shellfish post Brexit then on a selfish shellfish level that's good news as far as I'm concerned.
It does not matter what you think. You are not typical. Microwave meals are indeed total cr*p but they are easy to cook (instructions on the box) and are full of the fats, salts and sugars that many people love. It is why we have so many obese people waddling around.
When I was still on Facebook in 2016 someone in the vollage I'm connected with shared something that suggested that leaving the EU would just mean we dropped into the EEA. It was at that point that I deactivated my account as there was clearly no hope. It is like pushing water uphill.
There was a long debate on here with people who should have known better claiming we could just drop into the EEA by rejoining EFTA, regardless of what the EU thought about the manoeuvre.
Is fish too expensive for it to grow in the domestic market?
Maybe a tad but we are remarkably unsophisticated when it comes to our taste in fish.
There’s no reason we couldn’t have the marvellous seafood that Spain and France enjoy (most of it is ours anyway) but Brits won’t generally eat fish unless it’s battered and served with chips, and even then it’s just haddock, cod or scampi. Occasionally some prawns or a bit of salmon for the adventurous ones - and that’s usually in a pie or pastry and not fresh. I’ve even heard one or two say fish is a bit “Catholic” (eh?).
It’s a travesty. A better action for the Government would be a British fish campaign backed by celebrity chefs (rather than all this trendy vegan crap) that would be delicious and sustainable, but I see precious sign of such thinking at present. People are intimidated by it, don’t know how to cook it or eat it and are scared it will taste foul or make them ill. All bollocks, of course.
If we want to help British fishermen we all need to eat far more British fish.
Good idea.
Could I suggest Rick Stein as someone to front it?
Pale, male and stale.
I have the perfect candidate, Prue Leith!
Not only female but the mother of a Conservative MP.
Might be able to help out with that oven ready deal too.
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
Then why was the idea that Brexit meant we would be out of the the Single Market portrayed as a German threat?
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
1975 to 2016 isn't one generation it was two generations.
If you want to divide it nicely then 1973 to 1993 (20 years of EEC membership) could make one generation, while 1993 to 2020 (27 years of EU membership) is another.
You seem to be putting 2014 as the starting point of a generation but that makes no sense. It occured in the last generation, the generation of EU membership that is now over.
We are starting a new generation now. Post Brexit is like Picard, it is The Next Generation.
So at a minimum 20 years ie 2034 at the earliest since the 2014 referendum.
As both myself and LadyG have pointed out to you numerous times there is zero chance of this Tory government allowing indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, if Starmer wins in 2024 and grants an indyref2 before that generation has elapsed after an SNP Holyrood majority in 2021 or as he needs SNP backing to become PM that is up to him, we Tories however have a Westminster majority of 80 and will ban indyref2 correctly for the rest of our term in power.
If you disagree with that so strongly you can go off and vote for Starmer
2034 is only the earliest if for some twisted self-serving reason you define the generation as starting in 2014. Why would you?
Politically post-Brexit is a new era from pre-Brexit. It is a new generation. The generation thing is meaningless nonsense so drop it.
At the 2021 Holyrood elections I will not have a vote and neither will you or Boris. The future of Scotland is, as great Conservative leaders like Thatcher recognised, an issue for the voters of Scotland. Not me or you.
If at the 2021 Hollyrood elections the Scottish voters vote for a new referendum then that is their own choice and I respect that. As do nearly all other Tories here. My personal opinion on the future of the union is immaterial - I respect the Scottish voters, why don't you?
So, it is perfectly legitimate – and indeed desirable – to want to recognise and reward NHS/care workers for their efforts in recent months. But if policymakers want those employees to benefit by £500 after tax, the solution is to pay a higher gross bonus. There is little reason for these rewards to be exempt from the existing social contract, or for them to require administrative and legislative hurdles to implement.
Of course, the Scottish Government knows this, and there is a healthy dose of politics in its call on the UK Government to exempt Scottish bonus payments from Scottish income tax. The inevitable rejection of the call by the UK Government served up exactly what the Scottish Government had really wanted: another example of the devolved fiscal framework apparently not working.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
1975 to 2016 isn't one generation it was two generations.
If you want to divide it nicely then 1973 to 1993 (20 years of EEC membership) could make one generation, while 1993 to 2020 (27 years of EU membership) is another.
You seem to be putting 2014 as the starting point of a generation but that makes no sense. It occured in the last generation, the generation of EU membership that is now over.
We are starting a new generation now. Post Brexit is like Picard, it is The Next Generation.
So at a minimum 20 years ie 2034 at the earliest since the 2014 referendum.
As both myself and LadyG have pointed out to you numerous times there is zero chance of this Tory government allowing indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, if Starmer wins in 2024 and grants an indyref2 before that generation has elapsed after an SNP Holyrood majority in 2021 or as he needs SNP backing to become PM that is up to him, we Tories however have a Westminster majority of 80 and will ban indyref2 correctly for the rest of our term in power.
If you disagree with that so strongly you can go off and vote for Starmer
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
Then why was the idea that Brexit meant we would be out of the the Single Market portrayed as a German threat?
So add the Germans to the list of Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, Corbyn, Gove, Johnson, Leadsom and others that said that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market.
Seems like unanimity on this issue in June 2016.
Even in your article the "official Remain campaign" described it as the "cold reality" of Brexit. Time to wake up to that cold reality.
I'm not sure that the Gammony magnificence of Sir Edward Leigh is the right member of the Tory party to attack Starmer. However, on this one he has a point - Starmer keeps picking at the long list of failings but isn't packaging them together into either a coherent attack or an alternative strategy.
Starmer is a big improvement on Corbyn (but so is my teacup), however he seems to lack the passion needed as LOTO
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
Is it in the law books? No?
And even if it was we are now several Parliaments on now.
Does anyone else feel like the country is going completely fucking mad? Lockdown tiers, scotch eggs, a British fish campaign fronted by David Icke, Brexit is now apparently some sort of stochastic pseudo religion for people who like flags and the cabinet are going to form together into an 80m tall mecha tory to invade Scotland.
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
Bore off Philip. This government are fighting a battle with the House of Lords to bin off its own manifesto it was elected on just a year ago. The idea that the word of a politician overrules the word of a referendum is laughable.
The referendum was simple. Should we leave the EU? The EEA is not the EU. Regardless of what politician x said about it that doesn't make those things true. Leaving the EEA *as well as* the EU is a political choice not one mandated by the referendum.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
Is it in the law books? No?
And even if it was we are now several Parliaments on now.
Our law and constitution in the UK is based on the sovereignty of Westminster, Westminster has a Tory majority of 80 until 2024, so tough!!
When I was still on Facebook in 2016 someone in the vollage I'm connected with shared something that suggested that leaving the EU would just mean we dropped into the EEA. It was at that point that I deactivated my account as there was clearly no hope. It is like pushing water uphill.
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
Most of the people of my acquaintance who voted for Brexit did so for one of three reasons: fewer foreigners, higher wages, more money for the NHS. The "Single Market" wasn't something that they knew about or cared about.
Does anyone else feel like the country is going completely fucking mad? Lockdown tiers, scotch eggs, a British fish campaign fronted by David Icke, Brexit is now apparently some sort of stochastic pseudo religion for people who like flags and the cabinet are going to form together into an 80m tall mecha tory to invade Scotland.
I refuse to accept that scotch eggs are a sign of madness. I love em. They do some beauties in the teletubbies service stations on the M5 near Gloucester.
OT: Neale Hanvey, suspended by the SNP for the 2019 election, has been voted on to the Members' Conduct Committee (!)
Also, Alyn Smith, Rhiannon Spear and Fiona Robertson failed to be elected to key convenorships, while Joanna Cherry, Roger Mullin, Catriona McDonald, and Dorothy Jessiman amongst others were elected to the NEC in what appears to be a grassroots members' backlash against some of the more outspoken woke-ish elements.
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
Bore off Philip. This government are fighting a battle with the House of Lords to bin off its own manifesto it was elected on just a year ago. The idea that the word of a politician overrules the word of a referendum is laughable.
The referendum was simple. Should we leave the EU? The EEA is not the EU. Regardless of what politician x said about it that doesn't make those things true. Leaving the EEA *as well as* the EU is a political choice not one mandated by the referendum.
It is a choice mandated by the winning 2019 Tory manifesto which promised:
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
We will negotiate a trade agreement next year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
I'm not sure that the Gammony magnificence of Sir Edward Leigh is the right member of the Tory party to attack Starmer. However, on this one he has a point - Starmer keeps picking at the long list of failings but isn't packaging them together into either a coherent attack or an alternative strategy.
I be fair to Starmer, the list is so long, tying them all together is a bit like herding weasels, but point taken.
I'm not sure that the Gammony magnificence of Sir Edward Leigh is the right member of the Tory party to attack Starmer. However, on this one he has a point - Starmer keeps picking at the long list of failings but isn't packaging them together into either a coherent attack or an alternative strategy.
Starmer is a big improvement on Corbyn (but so is my teacup), however he seems to lack the passion needed as LOTO
He has about as much passion as a cardboard cutout of himself would have.
F1: I'm content to have laid Bottas and Verstappen having luckily been online to immediately hear of Hamilton's absence, and back the aforementioned pair at longer odds.
However, Betfair has them at 2.46 and 2.6 or so. One of them, barring woe, should win. The odds are still a bit long.
F1: I'm content to have laid Bottas and Verstappen having luckily been online to immediately hear of Hamilton's absence, and back the aforementioned pair at longer odds.
However, Betfair has them at 2.46 and 2.6 or so. One of them, barring woe, should win. The odds are still a bit long.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
Is it in the law books? No?
And even if it was we are now several Parliaments on now.
Our law and constitution in the UK is based on the sovereignty of Westminster, Westminster has a Tory majority of 80 until 2024, so tough!!
There is no UK constitution, as your party in England has been so enthusiastically proving. And Scots Law and English Law long predate any notions of parliamentary sovereignty, as indeed your enthusiasn for the Henriciuan settlement shows.
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
Bore off Philip. This government are fighting a battle with the House of Lords to bin off its own manifesto it was elected on just a year ago. The idea that the word of a politician overrules the word of a referendum is laughable.
The referendum was simple. Should we leave the EU? The EEA is not the EU. Regardless of what politician x said about it that doesn't make those things true. Leaving the EEA *as well as* the EU is a political choice not one mandated by the referendum.
It is a choice mandated by the winning 2019 Tory manifesto which promised:
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
We will negotiate a trade agreement next year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
You make exactly the point I was making. To leave the EEA is a political choice made by the Tory party, not a mandated choice from a referendum two parliaments ago that made no mention of the EEA.
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
Then why was the idea that Brexit meant we would be out of the the Single Market portrayed as a German threat?
So add the Germans to the list of Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, Corbyn, Gove, Johnson, Leadsom and others that said that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market.
Seems like unanimity on this issue in June 2016.
It was portrayed as a negotiating card. Apparently the EU couldn't afford to kick us out of the single market, so saying we would leave it would cause them to concede to our terms to avoid being 'punished'.
F1: I'm content to have laid Bottas and Verstappen having luckily been online to immediately hear of Hamilton's absence, and back the aforementioned pair at longer odds.
However, Betfair has them at 2.46 and 2.6 or so. One of them, barring woe, should win. The odds are still a bit long.
F1: I'm content to have laid Bottas and Verstappen having luckily been online to immediately hear of Hamilton's absence, and back the aforementioned pair at longer odds.
However, Betfair has them at 2.46 and 2.6 or so. One of them, barring woe, should win. The odds are still a bit long.
who will replace LH for mercedes?
Their test drivers are Gutierrez and VanDonkey. Take your pick - they'd be quicker if Toto drove the car himself.
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
1975 to 2016 isn't one generation it was two generations.
If you want to divide it nicely then 1973 to 1993 (20 years of EEC membership) could make one generation, while 1993 to 2020 (27 years of EU membership) is another.
You seem to be putting 2014 as the starting point of a generation but that makes no sense. It occured in the last generation, the generation of EU membership that is now over.
We are starting a new generation now. Post Brexit is like Picard, it is The Next Generation.
So at a minimum 20 years ie 2034 at the earliest since the 2014 referendum.
As both myself and LadyG have pointed out to you numerous times there is zero chance of this Tory government allowing indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, if Starmer wins in 2024 and grants an indyref2 before that generation has elapsed after an SNP Holyrood majority in 2021 or as he needs SNP backing to become PM that is up to him, we Tories however have a Westminster majority of 80 and will ban indyref2 correctly for the rest of our term in power.
If you disagree with that so strongly you can go off and vote for Starmer
2034 is only the earliest if for some twisted self-serving reason you define the generation as starting in 2014. Why would you?
Politically post-Brexit is a new era from pre-Brexit. It is a new generation. The generation thing is meaningless nonsense so drop it.
At the 2021 Holyrood elections I will not have a vote and neither will you or Boris. The future of Scotland is, as great Conservative leaders like Thatcher recognised, an issue for the voters of Scotland. Not me or you.
If at the 2021 Hollyrood elections the Scottish voters vote for a new referendum then that is their own choice and I respect that. As do nearly all other Tories here. My personal opinion on the future of the union is immaterial - I respect the Scottish voters, why don't you?
I respect the will of the 55% of Scots who voted No in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
This Tory government will respect that, as the Secretary of State for Scotland correctly said 'the UK government intends to refuse another independence referendum "for a generation".
We didn't vote to leave the EU to remain bound by EU rules. 🙄
We didn't vote to leave the EU to do anything in particular, we just voted to leave. There were no qualifications or ambitions on the referendum ballot paper; nothing about fish or cars or playing fields; those are inventions of Boris, or Nigel, or the media.
Then why did David Cameron say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
Bore off Philip. This government are fighting a battle with the House of Lords to bin off its own manifesto it was elected on just a year ago. The idea that the word of a politician overrules the word of a referendum is laughable.
The referendum was simple. Should we leave the EU? The EEA is not the EU. Regardless of what politician x said about it that doesn't make those things true. Leaving the EEA *as well as* the EU is a political choice not one mandated by the referendum.
It is a choice mandated by the winning 2019 Tory manifesto which promised:
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
We will negotiate a trade agreement next year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
You make exactly the point I was making. To leave the EEA is a political choice made by the Tory party, not a mandated choice from a referendum two parliaments ago that made no mention of the EEA.
It is a choice mandated by the manifesto which won this Tory government a majority of 80
2014 was a political generation ago. It was a lifetime ago. It was an era ago.
Brexit has moved us into a new era of politics.
It was just 6 years ago, on no definition a generation
Six years can be a generation if there are meaningful changes.
I was born in 1982, my generation is called "Millenials". A child born in 1976 is Generation X. That is only a six year gap but we are different "generations".
2014 was an era where the UK was in the EU. The 2020s is a different generation politically.
A generation 'a period of about 25 to 30 years, in which most human babies become adults and have their own children.'
Yes and the EU membership lasted 27 year from 1993 to 2020. That fits your 25 to 30 rule.
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
The first EEC referendum was in 1975, the second EU referendum in 2016 ie 41 years and a genuine generation.
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
Is it in the law books? No?
And even if it was we are now several Parliaments on now.
Our law and constitution in the UK is based on the sovereignty of Westminster, Westminster has a Tory majority of 80 until 2024, so tough!!
Well that attitude will win friends and influence people in Scotland won't it?
I stand with Margaret Thatcher: As a nation, they [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way.”
In 2021 Scottish voters go to the polls. They can determine their own future.
Comments
Is there any other explanation for Phil?
That generation has now drawn to a close. We are in a new generation now.
Basic problem is that punters don't know what fish swim locally. "Cod and Chips" must be British after Brexit, yes? No - not unless we're going to force them to swim here from Iceland...
Even Quebec's second independence referendum in 1995 was a full 15 years after the first in 1980, so rightly this Tory government will ban indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, 2014 was a once in a generation vote
It's certainly effective. Most of the Today program discussion of the plight of the hospitality trade this morning was sidelined into banter about the relative merits of the eggs and Cornish pasties.
PM: I Love Slough
No you don't. Nobody loves Slough...
However the Septennial Act was repealed by the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_dictatorship
Originally aimed at the Callaghan government, it was far more appositely used to describe the Thatcherite majorities of the 80s, elected by minorities of the voting public.
It's The Great British Sausage, straight out of Yes Minister.
Serves government purposes rather well.
If you want to divide it nicely then 1973 to 1993 (20 years of EEC membership) could make one generation, while 1993 to 2020 (27 years of EU membership) is another.
You seem to be putting 2014 as the starting point of a generation but that makes no sense. It occured in the last generation, the generation of EU membership that is now over.
We are starting a new generation now. Post Brexit is like Picard, it is The Next Generation.
However, Betfair has them at 2.46 and 2.6 or so. One of them, barring woe, should win. The odds are still a bit long.
As both myself and LadyG have pointed out to you numerous times there is zero chance of this Tory government allowing indyref2 whatever happens at Holyrood next year, if Starmer wins in 2024 and grants an indyref2 before that generation has elapsed after an SNP Holyrood majority in 2021 or as he needs SNP backing to become PM that is up to him, we Tories however have a Westminster majority of 80 and will ban indyref2 correctly for the rest of our term in power.
If you disagree with that so strongly you can go off and vote for Starmer
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1333758641808269316
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1333759929392525312
It's a bit like having September, October, November and December being the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth months of the year.
People can test antigen positive for weeks after infection, but whether that is viable virus, or just scraps of dead virus isn't yet clear.
It seems as if the penny has finally dropped with some UK fishermen , they now realize that Bozo and the rest of the unhinged cabinet will be throwing them under a bus to engineer a no deal under the guise of allegedly standing up for them.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/940027/Draft-Fixed-term-Parliaments-Act-Repeal-Bill.pdf
The only possible meaningful definition of a generation is any rolling 20 year period. The arbitrary distinctions the media divide recent generations into have no meaningful basis in reality. That's not to say that there shouldn't be another referendum in Scotland now but it was ill advised 6 years ago to speak of a "generation".
*I'm making allowances for inflation.
Not only female but the mother of a Conservative MP.
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1333551137652428801
What's that you say?
'POLLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 1
1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.
2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
3. The Secretary of State shall not make an order under paragraph 1 earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll under this Schedule'
He believes there is no qualitative difference between frozen shellfish and fresh shellfish.
I think he is, erm, "lobbying" on this one.
If the proposal was clear and would unambiguously save lives with support for business then he would stand firm. You have to vote for this or people die.
Instead we get a load of useless wazzocks sitting in a room throwing a bean bag about coming up with every more absurd ideas. Yes and Ho.
Sadly.
Then why did George Osborne say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Nick Clegg say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Jeremy Corbyn say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Michael Gove say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Boris Johnson say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
Then why did Andrea Leadsom say if we voted to leave we would be out of the Single Market?
That's not just Nigel. I couldn't care less about Nigel, nor do I agree with all the above on everything (or even nearly anything for Corbyn) but there was a context to the ballot.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/741580762995167232
Politically post-Brexit is a new era from pre-Brexit. It is a new generation. The generation thing is meaningless nonsense so drop it.
At the 2021 Holyrood elections I will not have a vote and neither will you or Boris. The future of Scotland is, as great Conservative leaders like Thatcher recognised, an issue for the voters of Scotland. Not me or you.
If at the 2021 Hollyrood elections the Scottish voters vote for a new referendum then that is their own choice and I respect that. As do nearly all other Tories here. My personal opinion on the future of the union is immaterial - I respect the Scottish voters, why don't you?
Of course, the Scottish Government knows this, and there is a healthy dose of politics in its call on the UK Government to exempt Scottish bonus payments from Scottish income tax. The inevitable rejection of the call by the UK Government served up exactly what the Scottish Government had really wanted: another example of the devolved fiscal framework apparently not working.
https://fraserofallander.org/scottish-economy/fiscal-policy-tax/on-exempting-nhs-bonus-payments-from-tax/
Seems like unanimity on this issue in June 2016.
Even in your article the "official Remain campaign" described it as the "cold reality" of Brexit. Time to wake up to that cold reality.
Greedy bugger!
And even if it was we are now several Parliaments on now.
The referendum was simple. Should we leave the EU? The EEA is not the EU. Regardless of what politician x said about it that doesn't make those things true. Leaving the EEA *as well as* the EU is a political choice not one mandated by the referendum.
Also, Alyn Smith, Rhiannon Spear and Fiona Robertson failed to be elected to key convenorships, while Joanna Cherry, Roger Mullin, Catriona McDonald, and Dorothy Jessiman amongst others were elected to the NEC in what appears to be a grassroots members' backlash against some of the more outspoken woke-ish elements.
Signs of sanity breaking out at last?
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to:
Take back control of our laws.
Take back control of our money.
Control our own trade policy.
Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system.
Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and
the environment.
Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
We will negotiate a trade agreement next year – one that will strengthen our Union –and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan (page 7)
Because he knows that is exactly what many of the people sitting behind him are thinking.
There is no UK constitution, as your party in England has been so enthusiastically proving. And Scots Law and English Law long predate any notions of parliamentary sovereignty, as indeed your enthusiasn for the Henriciuan settlement shows.
1. A savoury snack comprising a hard boiled egg encased in sausage meat, with a golden breadcrumb coating.
2. A ginger lad's knackers, bollocks, testes etc
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scotch+eggs
This Tory government will respect that, as the Secretary of State for Scotland correctly said 'the UK government intends to refuse another independence referendum "for a generation".
In a BBC interview, Mr Jack suggested a generation could be "25 or 40 years".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54827100
If you dislike that tough, go off and vote Labour
I stand with Margaret Thatcher: As a nation, they [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way.”
In 2021 Scottish voters go to the polls. They can determine their own future.