I observe that the League Cup final will have a crowd. But no under 18's or clinically vulnerable allowed. What I don't see is any explanation of the rationale.
I guess it’s a test event so they’re looking to see how it all works.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
There is a reason all countries have a key decision maker for acts of war etc - war is not an issue to decide upon by committee.
Lets say MI6 says they have intelligence on a dangerous and known terrorist like Jihadi John that can be cleanly taken out by a missile strike. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.
Or terrorists have taken over a building in London, the SAS are ready and prepared to take it back. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.
You want to have instead of a PM accountable to Parliament making these decisions, them instead to be taken by a committee in public? And you think that works?
What a joke. Clearly not thought through whatsoever.
Sigh. Are you suggesting that a PM authorising the SAS to storm a building in London is going to have a parliamentary vote on the matter? Clearly fucking not, so why would he consult a Council of the Isles? There is a division between the exercise of day to day operational decisions, which of course the PM is responsible for, and large scale operations and commitments, the likes of which are currently taken after a vote in Parliament, that would be subject to the proposed instrument.
We could have a far more constructive debate if you avoided really sloppy straw man arguments like these - I propose ideas presupposing a base level of intelligence, try to live up to it.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
There is a reason all countries have a key decision maker for acts of war etc - war is not an issue to decide upon by committee.
Lets say MI6 says they have intelligence on a dangerous and known terrorist like Jihadi John that can be cleanly taken out by a missile strike. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.
Or terrorists have taken over a building in London, the SAS are ready and prepared to take it back. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.
You want to have instead of a PM accountable to Parliament making these decisions, them instead to be taken by a committee in public? And you think that works?
What a joke. Clearly not thought through whatsoever.
Sigh. Are you suggesting that a PM authorising the SAS to storm a building in London is going to have a parliamentary vote on the matter? Clearly fucking not, so why would he consult a Council of the Isles? There is a division between the exercise of day to day operational decisions, which of course the PM is responsible for, and large scale operations and commitments, the likes of which are currently taken after a vote in Parliament, that would be subject to the proposed instrument.
We could have a far more constructive debate if you avoided really sloppy straw man arguments like these - I propose ideas presupposing a base level of intelligence, try to live up to it.
Acts of war don't require Parliamentary votes currently, that's the frigging point, but you're proposing that they do. Currently they're done under Royal Prerogative rather than votes of Parliament - so you're introducing five Parliaments having a say instead of none. 🙄
Ville de Bitche: Facebook mistakenly removes French town's page
"On 19 March, Facebook informed us that our page, Ville de Bitche, was no longer online, on the basis that it was 'in violation of conditions applying to Facebook pages',"
6 cases of blood clots in 7 million doses of J&J....more likely you have a serious car accident on the way to getting your jab.
I have no idea of the rates of side effects in common non-prescription medicines, but I presume 1 in a million is seen as perfectly acceptable.
They must be afraid of being sued by one of the 6 in 7 million. Maybe it's time for the US government to bring in laws to stop unreasonable actions of that type.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
That's exactly why the EU cannot have control of armed forces unless it becomes a Government.
It would be infighting and arse-covering and pass-the-parcel whilst military people and civilians die.
Which is not that far from the COVID issue, really.
I'm still moderately impressed by the Committee of 4 with England having 2 votes, so the other three together can block.
Does Germany have any input from the Lander to national decisions - suspect not.
Interesting graph that Comical Dave is using today:
Really quite creative.
For context this is the full chart since it began.
Never been even a single day the EU have matched the UK's total. Interesting that the USA didn't see an Easter slowdown.
To add: the EU average line is really very close to the Germany line.
Off course it's also a squirrel - the interesting line for the next 2 months (except for the real value of having a vaccine-enthusiasm competition) is how many people have not had a vaccine up to three weeks ago, which is the measure of vulnerability.
6 cases of blood clots in 7 million doses of J&J....more likely you have a serious car accident on the way to getting your jab.
I have no idea of the rates of side effects in common non-prescription medicines, but I presume 1 in a million is seen as perfectly acceptable.
They must be afraid of being sued by one of the 6 in 7 million. Maybe it's time for the US government to bring in laws to stop unreasonable actions of that type.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
6 cases of blood clots in 7 million doses of J&J....more likely you have a serious car accident on the way to getting your jab.
I have no idea of the rates of side effects in common non-prescription medicines, but I presume 1 in a million is seen as perfectly acceptable.
They must be afraid of being sued by one of the 6 in 7 million. Maybe it's time for the US government to bring in laws to stop unreasonable actions of that type.
I thought US vaccine-makers were already indemnified.
Ville de Bitche: Facebook mistakenly removes French town's page
"On 19 March, Facebook informed us that our page, Ville de Bitche, was no longer online, on the basis that it was 'in violation of conditions applying to Facebook pages',"
6 cases of blood clots in 7 million doses of J&J....more likely you have a serious car accident on the way to getting your jab.
I have no idea of the rates of side effects in common non-prescription medicines, but I presume 1 in a million is seen as perfectly acceptable.
On Ars Technica I've seen multiple people say that aspirin is more risky, I don't know if they are correct, but that seems to be the reference point a lot of them are using.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
There is a reason all countries have a key decision maker for acts of war etc - war is not an issue to decide upon by committee.
Lets say MI6 says they have intelligence on a dangerous and known terrorist like Jihadi John that can be cleanly taken out by a missile strike. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.
Or terrorists have taken over a building in London, the SAS are ready and prepared to take it back. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.
You want to have instead of a PM accountable to Parliament making these decisions, them instead to be taken by a committee in public? And you think that works?
What a joke. Clearly not thought through whatsoever.
Sigh. Are you suggesting that a PM authorising the SAS to storm a building in London is going to have a parliamentary vote on the matter? Clearly fucking not, so why would he consult a Council of the Isles? There is a division between the exercise of day to day operational decisions, which of course the PM is responsible for, and large scale operations and commitments, the likes of which are currently taken after a vote in Parliament, that would be subject to the proposed instrument.
We could have a far more constructive debate if you avoided really sloppy straw man arguments like these - I propose ideas presupposing a base level of intelligence, try to live up to it.
Acts of war don't require Parliamentary votes currently, that's the frigging point, but you're proposing that they do. Currently they're done under Royal Prerogative rather than votes of Parliament - so you're introducing five Parliaments having a say instead of none. 🙄
It is the current convention/precedent that they do have a parliamentary vote; this was the case in Iraq and Syria - I am well aware that it is not a constitutional requirement.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
How about 'PM delays bombing Jihadi John while he rings around the leaders'?
Currently the PM doesn't have to go to Parliament to do acts of war, its under Royal Prerogative. You're wanting five Parliaments involved where currently none are. 😕
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
That's exactly why the EU cannot have control of armed forces unless it becomes a Government.
It would be infighting and arse-covering and pass-the-parcel whilst military people and civilians die.
Which is not that far from the COVID issue, really.
I'm still moderately impressed by the Committee of 4 with England having 2 votes, so the other three together can block.
Does Germany have any input from the Lander to national decisions - suspect not.
Germany also doesn't have any Lander (to my knowledge) that seem to be walking toward the exit door. Good for Germany, but wishing we were them doesn't seem to be a very constructive approach.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
Not really. I don't think the UK has approved J+J yet. It's not totally critical for the EU either- Pfizer is their workhorse. Besides my science teacher guess is that this will play out much like the AZ wobble. Pause while the boffins work out who reacts badly, then shuffle the doses round to avoid the problems.
Not ideal, but fine in the grand scheme of things.
J&J forms a huge part of their summer roll out plan for under 50s because they won't have enough Pfizer/Moderna for that bit of it until probably 2022 and given what we know from AZ it's likely that J&J will be restricted from those age groups.
The mood music from J+J seems to be that the problem is fixable, provided doctors follow the right treatments. And the pause is to get that information sorted and disseminated.
A problem has cropped up, it's been identified quickly, and is in the process of being fixed. Science as normal.
It's probably the same as what has been suggested for AZ, a follow up course of blood thinners for at risk patients a couple of days later. For AZ the issue is temporary, it doesn't create a new state of hyperimmunity that destroys platelets so it stands to reason that the same solution would work for J&J.
What it does do is increase the complexity of rolling it out. I think the NHS could handle it, but other less centralised systems might struggle.
It does go to show that Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have really made absolutely incredible products though, Novavax looks excellent too though it would need to be confirmed in the same PIV process as the other two.
6 cases of blood clots in 7 million doses of J&J....more likely you have a serious car accident on the way to getting your jab.
I have no idea of the rates of side effects in common non-prescription medicines, but I presume 1 in a million is seen as perfectly acceptable.
On Ars Technica I've seen multiple people say that aspirin is more risky, I don't know if they are correct, but that seems to be the reference point a lot of them are using.
It's a standard comparator. Even when I was studying in the late 70s, we were told that "if it were developed today, aspirin would not get approved."
Just look at the side effect data of the smallpox vaccine used to rid the world of that disease (not the new and improved versions). While deaths were 1:1M, other severe side effects were intolerably common by today's standards:
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
How about 'PM delays bombing Jihadi John while he rings around the leaders'?
Currently the PM doesn't have to go to Parliament to do acts of war, its under Royal Prerogative. You're wanting five Parliaments involved where currently none are. 😕
There is no earthly reason why the existence of the COTI as a rubber-stamp for large scale military commitments would do anything, or even have a means to do anything, about this, just as, whilst it is customary to have a parliamentary vote about large scale military commitments, such targeted strikes currently happen without one.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
OK, I've gone back to your original proposal to have a think about other scenarios. You said: ... my proposal ... just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
So plausible future scenarios might include: - Trident renewal - Heathrow airport expansion - HS2/3/n - Whatever the current plan is for "levelling-up" the North of England
Big fat no on allowing veto power to the fringe nations on any of those. In particular, any investment decisions are fraught with danger as every region would want an equivalent spend in their own territory.
Also, you keep framing it as a check on England's power. But it works the other way as well - so Scotland/Wales/NI could unilaterally take the UK back into the EU, over the objections from England, if they chose. That alone is enough for this idea to be terrible.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
Not really. I don't think the UK has approved J+J yet. It's not totally critical for the EU either- Pfizer is their workhorse. Besides my science teacher guess is that this will play out much like the AZ wobble. Pause while the boffins work out who reacts badly, then shuffle the doses round to avoid the problems.
Not ideal, but fine in the grand scheme of things.
J&J forms a huge part of their summer roll out plan for under 50s because they won't have enough Pfizer/Moderna for that bit of it until probably 2022 and given what we know from AZ it's likely that J&J will be restricted from those age groups.
The mood music from J+J seems to be that the problem is fixable, provided doctors follow the right treatments. And the pause is to get that information sorted and disseminated.
A problem has cropped up, it's been identified quickly, and is in the process of being fixed. Science as normal.
It's probably the same as what has been suggested for AZ, a follow up course of blood thinners for at risk patients a couple of days later. For AZ the issue is temporary, it doesn't create a new state of hyperimmunity that destroys platelets so it stands to reason that the same solution would work for J&J.
What it does do is increase the complexity of rolling it out. I think the NHS could handle it, but other less centralised systems might struggle.
It does go to show that Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have really made absolutely incredible products though, Novavax looks excellent too though it would need to be confirmed in the same PIV process as the other two.
I think there are two issues with J&J:
1 - A few blood-clot (?) type occurrences. 2 - They lost 15m production when an operative mixed up AZ ingredients with J&J, and they decided to dedicate the factory to J&J. That will cause a switchover-delay.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
How about 'PM delays bombing Jihadi John while he rings around the leaders'?
Currently the PM doesn't have to go to Parliament to do acts of war, its under Royal Prerogative. You're wanting five Parliaments involved where currently none are. 😕
There is no earthly reason why the existence of the COTI as a rubber-stamp for large scale military commitments would do anything, or even have a means to do anything, about this, just as, whilst it is customary to have a parliamentary vote about large scale military commitments, such targeted strikes currently happen without one.
Your proposal is absolutely halfbaked. Who defines what is or is not a large deployment. All that would likely end up happening is that the PM would take decisions unilaterally without a vote and so we'd end up with less Parliamentary scrutiny not more.
Its worth noting that in the USA the last official "declaration of war" was in 1942.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
It's interesting to see if Khan takes it on the first round or not. I do pity the counters in case he doesn't - what an absolute waste of their time the second round is.
And I still can't believe UKIP actually found a candidate called Gammons.
1. Will Khan win on the first round? 2. How many votes will the candidate in last place receive? 3. How many deposits will be saved? (On that poll, perhaps not so uncertain. Four saved deposits. Any idea what happens to lost election deposits? Do they just get thrown into the local authority budget?)
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
OK, I've gone back to your original proposal to have a think about other scenarios. You said: ... my proposal ... just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
So plausible future scenarios might include: - Trident renewal - Heathrow airport expansion - HS2/3/n - Whatever the current plan is for "levelling-up" the North of England
Big fat no on allowing veto power to the fringe nations on any of those. In particular, any investment decisions are fraught with danger as every region would want an equivalent spend in their own territory.
Also, you keep framing it as a check on England's power. But it works the other way as well - so Scotland/Wales/NI could unilaterally take the UK back into the EU, over the objections from England, if they chose. That alone is enough for this idea to be terrible.
No they couldn't. The COTI would not have any role in proposing anything, as I made very clear from the start. They could say no to something, not create something else.
Regarding Trident renewal, regrettably (as I'm not a Trident fan) I think it would pass no problems, with at least NI, probably Wales, probably not Scotland. However, the recent inexplicable investment in 260 missiles (up from the current 40)? Far tougher sell, and would have probably been a big boon for Boris to have been able to tell Uncle Joe he'd have to get back to him on that one.
As for making approval of investment decisions contingent on equivalent amounts being spent in the nations - isn't this exactly what happens at the moment anyway?
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
There are whole campaigns and people whose job it is to 'dispatch' greys, to try and let the native reds back in.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
OK, I've gone back to your original proposal to have a think about other scenarios. You said: ... my proposal ... just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
So plausible future scenarios might include: - Trident renewal - Heathrow airport expansion - HS2/3/n - Whatever the current plan is for "levelling-up" the North of England
Big fat no on allowing veto power to the fringe nations on any of those. In particular, any investment decisions are fraught with danger as every region would want an equivalent spend in their own territory.
Also, you keep framing it as a check on England's power. But it works the other way as well - so Scotland/Wales/NI could unilaterally take the UK back into the EU, over the objections from England, if they chose. That alone is enough for this idea to be terrible.
No they couldn't. The COTI would not have any role in proposing anything, as I made very clear from the start. They could say no to something, not create something else.
Regarding Trident renewal, regrettably (as I'm not a Trident fan) I think it would pass no problems, with at least NI, probably Wales, probably not Scotland. However, the recent inexplicable investment in 260 missiles (up from the current 40)? Far tougher sell, and would have probably been a big boon for Boris to have been able to tell Uncle Joe he'd have to get back to him on that one.
As for making approval of investment decisions contingent on equivalent amounts being spent in the nations - isn't this exactly what happens at the moment anyway?
So you seriously think it's a good idea to kneecap the Government's ability to invest in Defence based on a holistic MOD plan? Instead the four countries should cherrypick which bit's they like or not.
Utter madness. Is there a single nation with a strong military stupid enough to do a scheme like yours?
1. Will Khan win on the first round? 2. How many votes will the candidate in last place receive? 3. How many deposits will be saved? (On that poll, perhaps not so uncertain. Four saved deposits. Any idea what happens to lost election deposits? Do they just get thrown into the local authority budget?)
Also:
4. Will the gap between second and third be smaller than the gap between first and second?
I observe that the League Cup final will have a crowd. But no under 18's or clinically vulnerable allowed. What I don't see is any explanation of the rationale.
I'm assuming that they're keeping extremely vulnerable people out of these test events because they're still paranoid about them being (possibly) too unsafe. As for children, they probably don't want to be accused of acting unethically by getting them involved in what could be framed as a scientific experiment.
World snooker having a Capacity Audience indoors for the final.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
There are whole campaigns and people whose job it is to 'dispatch' greys, to try and let the native reds back in.
I remember seeing red squirrels as a small boy.
As an adult I've only seen them once in the UK, on Brownsea Island.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
Yet the number of people being vaccinated across the EU keeps rising every day. J&J will - like AZ - just not be given to younger people, particularly women.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
There are whole campaigns and people whose job it is to 'dispatch' greys, to try and let the native reds back in.
I remember seeing red squirrels as a small boy.
As an adult I've only seen them once in the UK, on Brownsea Island.
Enchanting
I've seen reds a few times in the Lake District. Perky little fellas, insouciantly unaware of their own celebrity.
I believe there are some around Formby too, though I've never seen any there.
1. Will Khan win on the first round? 2. How many votes will the candidate in last place receive? 3. How many deposits will be saved? (On that poll, perhaps not so uncertain. Four saved deposits. Any idea what happens to lost election deposits? Do they just get thrown into the local authority budget?)
Also:
4. Will the gap between second and third be smaller than the gap between first and second?
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
There are whole campaigns and people whose job it is to 'dispatch' greys, to try and let the native reds back in.
I remember seeing red squirrels as a small boy.
As an adult I've only seen them once in the UK, on Brownsea Island.
Enchanting
I've seen reds a few times in the Lake District. Perky little fellas, insouciantly unaware of their own celebrity.
I believe there are some around Formby too, though I've never seen any there.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
OK, I've gone back to your original proposal to have a think about other scenarios. You said: ... my proposal ... just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
So plausible future scenarios might include: - Trident renewal - Heathrow airport expansion - HS2/3/n - Whatever the current plan is for "levelling-up" the North of England
Big fat no on allowing veto power to the fringe nations on any of those. In particular, any investment decisions are fraught with danger as every region would want an equivalent spend in their own territory.
Also, you keep framing it as a check on England's power. But it works the other way as well - so Scotland/Wales/NI could unilaterally take the UK back into the EU, over the objections from England, if they chose. That alone is enough for this idea to be terrible.
No they couldn't. The COTI would not have any role in proposing anything, as I made very clear from the start. They could say no to something, not create something else.
Regarding Trident renewal, regrettably (as I'm not a Trident fan) I think it would pass no problems, with at least NI, probably Wales, probably not Scotland. However, the recent inexplicable investment in 260 missiles (up from the current 40)? Far tougher sell, and would have probably been a big boon for Boris to have been able to tell Uncle Joe he'd have to get back to him on that one.
As for making approval of investment decisions contingent on equivalent amounts being spent in the nations - isn't this exactly what happens at the moment anyway?
So you seriously think it's a good idea to kneecap the Government's ability to invest in Defence based on a holistic MOD plan? Instead the four countries should cherrypick which bit's they like or not.
Utter madness. Is there a single nation with a strong military stupid enough to do a scheme like yours?
Given that you are actively opposed to the continuation of the United Kingdom, with the unimaginable security consequences of that for our defences in general and our nuclear defences in particular, I'm not sure how much weight you expect to be ascribed to your opinions.
These decisions have big impacts on the countries concerned, and they have no say except that which their contingent of MPs grants them, so yes, I am in favour of them getting a limited say. I think this would result in better and stronger policy, and one where all could be satisified that the decision was made jointly.
If you heard that the Government wished to purchase 220 extra nukes, but had been talked down to an extra 60, the balance to be spent on conventional forces that we WILL actually use, would you have have been particularly distraught? I find that odd.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
OK, I've gone back to your original proposal to have a think about other scenarios. You said: ... my proposal ... just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
So plausible future scenarios might include: - Trident renewal - Heathrow airport expansion - HS2/3/n - Whatever the current plan is for "levelling-up" the North of England
Big fat no on allowing veto power to the fringe nations on any of those. In particular, any investment decisions are fraught with danger as every region would want an equivalent spend in their own territory.
Also, you keep framing it as a check on England's power. But it works the other way as well - so Scotland/Wales/NI could unilaterally take the UK back into the EU, over the objections from England, if they chose. That alone is enough for this idea to be terrible.
No they couldn't. The COTI would not have any role in proposing anything, as I made very clear from the start. They could say no to something, not create something else.
Regarding Trident renewal, regrettably (as I'm not a Trident fan) I think it would pass no problems, with at least NI, probably Wales, probably not Scotland. However, the recent inexplicable investment in 260 missiles (up from the current 40)? Far tougher sell, and would have probably been a big boon for Boris to have been able to tell Uncle Joe he'd have to get back to him on that one.
As for making approval of investment decisions contingent on equivalent amounts being spent in the nations - isn't this exactly what happens at the moment anyway?
Right then. Who puts forward proposals to be voted on? And how do you move forward if they get voted down, and whoever proposed it insists it's of systemic importance it gets passed, and sends it straight back for reconsideration?
Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63
'Tis but a flesh wound...
That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
Just humour him.
I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
'H' is a good analyst. I don't mind being out on a limb but it was comforting to find him sharing much of my 'new politics new punditry' perspective on Hartlepool and the wider post Brexit political landscape. We both recognize in our opposite but equally shrewd and dispassionate ways that a Labour hold there is not the most likely outcome and should it happen would be a genuine boost for the party's longer term GE24 prospects. Others, meanwhile, either cling to the old mantras and fail to put their thinking cap on, or allow partisanship to drive their punditry and predictions. And that's perfectly ok. There's no shame in that at all.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
Yet the number of people being vaccinated across the EU keeps rising every day. J&J will - like AZ - just not be given to younger people, particularly women.
I think the issue is that current Pfizer doses are already pretty much spoken for and they need to fill a gap of about 150m single dose J&J vaccines with 300m of something else.
Additionally Pfizer has raised their prices to look a lot more like Moderna so the thrifty EC won't want to commit to $25 per dose when they previously signed at $16 per dose and I'm told that Pfizer aren't giving out discounts becuase they know it's a seller's market because of all the AZ and now J&J issues that they aren't facing.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
OK, I've gone back to your original proposal to have a think about other scenarios. You said: ... my proposal ... just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
So plausible future scenarios might include: - Trident renewal - Heathrow airport expansion - HS2/3/n - Whatever the current plan is for "levelling-up" the North of England
Big fat no on allowing veto power to the fringe nations on any of those. In particular, any investment decisions are fraught with danger as every region would want an equivalent spend in their own territory.
Also, you keep framing it as a check on England's power. But it works the other way as well - so Scotland/Wales/NI could unilaterally take the UK back into the EU, over the objections from England, if they chose. That alone is enough for this idea to be terrible.
No they couldn't. The COTI would not have any role in proposing anything, as I made very clear from the start. They could say no to something, not create something else.
Regarding Trident renewal, regrettably (as I'm not a Trident fan) I think it would pass no problems, with at least NI, probably Wales, probably not Scotland. However, the recent inexplicable investment in 260 missiles (up from the current 40)? Far tougher sell, and would have probably been a big boon for Boris to have been able to tell Uncle Joe he'd have to get back to him on that one.
As for making approval of investment decisions contingent on equivalent amounts being spent in the nations - isn't this exactly what happens at the moment anyway?
So you seriously think it's a good idea to kneecap the Government's ability to invest in Defence based on a holistic MOD plan? Instead the four countries should cherrypick which bit's they like or not.
Utter madness. Is there a single nation with a strong military stupid enough to do a scheme like yours?
Given that you are actively opposed to the continuation of the United Kingdom, with the unimaginable security consequences of that for our defences in general and our nuclear defences in particular, I'm not sure how much weight you expect to be ascribed to your opinions.
These decisions have big impacts on the countries concerned, and they have no say except that which their contingent of MPs grants them, so yes, I am in favour of them getting a limited say. I think this would result in better and stronger policy, and one where all could be satisified that the decision was made jointly.
If you heard that the Government wished to purchase 220 extra nukes, but had been talked down to an extra 60, the balance to be spent on conventional forces that we WILL actually use, would you have have been particularly distraught? I find that odd.
For as long as the UK exists, it's defence should be determined in the UK Parliament.
As far as I know all Federal countries have defence as a Federal not a States issue.
How many nukes we have, if any, should be an issue for Parliament. Not horse trading between First Ministers.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
There are whole campaigns and people whose job it is to 'dispatch' greys, to try and let the native reds back in.
I remember seeing red squirrels as a small boy.
As an adult I've only seen them once in the UK, on Brownsea Island.
Enchanting
I saw red squirrels in Vienna. Mangy looking little beasts.
On topic, it shouldn't be able to happen here because we have pretty strict rules on the direct debit guarantee (and the ease to cancel them) and the fact there's regulation around continuous card payment authority.
As an aside, try and pay for everything over £100 on a credit card, you get so much protection that way.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63
'Tis but a flesh wound...
That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
Just humour him.
I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
'H' is a good analyst. I don't mind being out on a limb but it was comforting to find him sharing much of my 'new politics new punditry' perspective on Hartlepool and the wider post Brexit political landscape. We both recognize in our opposite but equally shrewd and dispassionate ways that a Labour hold there is not the most likely outcome and should it happen would be a genuine boost for the party's longer term GE24 prospects. Others, meanwhile, either cling to the old mantras and fail to put their thinking cap on, or allow partisanship to drive their punditry and predictions. And that's perfectly ok. There's no shame in that at all.
I think you're overreaching. The Hartlepool debate is really only about what happens to 19GE BXP voters: so they mostly transfer to CON, or LAB, or stay with Farage, or stay at home? Either way, we're all taking the 19GE result as the starting point, which is presumably after (or at least when) your supposed "new politics" started.
Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63
'Tis but a flesh wound...
That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
Just humour him.
I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
'H' is a good analyst. I don't mind being out on a limb but it was comforting to find him sharing much of my 'new politics new punditry' perspective on Hartlepool and the wider post Brexit political landscape. We both recognize in our opposite but equally shrewd and dispassionate ways that a Labour hold there is not the most likely outcome and should it happen would be a genuine boost for the party's longer term GE24 prospects. Others, meanwhile, either cling to the old mantras and fail to put their thinking cap on, or allow partisanship to drive their punditry and predictions. And that's perfectly ok. There's no shame in that at all.
Alternatively the two of you have fallen down the same simplistic rabbit hole and not engaged in critical thinking.
It's worth noting that despite the BXP vote the swing in Hartlepool was comparable to some Red Wall gains in 2019. If the BXP vote were simply mistakenly considered Tory votes then the swing would have been ludicrously big compared to the Red Wall generally.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
Yet the number of people being vaccinated across the EU keeps rising every day. J&J will - like AZ - just not be given to younger people, particularly women.
I think the issue is that current Pfizer doses are already pretty much spoken for and they need to fill a gap of about 150m single dose J&J vaccines with 300m of something else.
Additionally Pfizer has raised their prices to look a lot more like Moderna so the thrifty EC won't want to commit to $25 per dose when they previously signed at $16 per dose and I'm told that Pfizer aren't giving out discounts becuase they know it's a seller's market because of all the AZ and now J&J issues that they aren't facing.
Besides which, 1. EU states can't deploy the Janssen jab, regardless of how eager they are to do so and whether or not they set an age limit for its use, so long as the company itself isn't willing to supply; and 2. if it ends up getting tarred with the same brush as AZ they're going to have trouble getting a lot of people to accept it.
Between this and the Sanofi fail, the Commission has been cursed by bad luck as well as bad judgment.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
Yet the number of people being vaccinated across the EU keeps rising every day. J&J will - like AZ - just not be given to younger people, particularly women.
I think the issue is that current Pfizer doses are already pretty much spoken for and they need to fill a gap of about 150m single dose J&J vaccines with 300m of something else.
Additionally Pfizer has raised their prices to look a lot more like Moderna so the thrifty EC won't want to commit to $25 per dose when they previously signed at $16 per dose and I'm told that Pfizer aren't giving out discounts becuase they know it's a seller's market because of all the AZ and now J&J issues that they aren't facing.
Besides which, 1. EU states can't deploy the Janssen jab, regardless of how eager they are to do so and whether or not they set an age limit for its use, so long as the company itself isn't willing to supply; and 2. if it ends up getting tarred with the same brush as AZ they're going to have trouble getting a lot of people to accept it.
Between this and the Sanofi fail, the Commission has been cursed by bad luck as well as bad judgment.
Since the likes of Novavax seem to be avoiding the EU following the way it treated AZN (which is logical to do) there's more than just luck involved.
If they were about to get large volumes of Novavax this would be less of a problem.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.
You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.
The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
You do seem at times to swerve into being a Russia troll but here in a democracy a nightmare for the PM is actually a nightmare for the voters.
The voters get to choose Parliament and thus the PM. You're proposing all that gets thrown in the bin for grubby backroom deals between First Ministers.
What an atrocious mess. And to fix a non-problem too. Have the democratically elected UK Parliament decide UK issues, its not difficult.
I've racked up a truly scary amount of posts here, on all sorts of topics, with no particular slant except my own (admittedly unique) world view. I'm relatively anonymous (as most of us are to some extent - admittedly some are here using their full name), but not to a huge degree, and I am fairly frank about my life and experiences. I know very little about Russian trolling of any kind, but I strongly suspect that whoever they are, and whatever they do, being 'me' on PB would not be a very good use of Putin's rubles. So might I strongly suggest that however passionately you disagree with me, you refrain from calling me an agent (or in this case 'swerving into' being an agent, if you can do that) of a foreign power, if you wouldn't mind. I'll pay you the same courtesy, even when I think you're being an utter cock.
Not in reference to you or Philip, just as a general observation, I'd say that when it comes to internet forums Putin trolls are comfortably outnumbered by utter cocks.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
Yet the number of people being vaccinated across the EU keeps rising every day. J&J will - like AZ - just not be given to younger people, particularly women.
I think the issue is that current Pfizer doses are already pretty much spoken for and they need to fill a gap of about 150m single dose J&J vaccines with 300m of something else.
Additionally Pfizer has raised their prices to look a lot more like Moderna so the thrifty EC won't want to commit to $25 per dose when they previously signed at $16 per dose and I'm told that Pfizer aren't giving out discounts becuase they know it's a seller's market because of all the AZ and now J&J issues that they aren't facing.
Indeed plus while the numbers being vaccinated daily are increasing, they're doing so from a very low base. They're still only now at the same rate we were back in January.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Crothers implies he is not alone among senior servants combining their official roles with acting as advisers for companies
'This advisory role was not seen as contentious, and I believe not uncommon'
How many of them are there?
I really don't think corruption matters to, or harms this Government. After all "Boris will be Boris".
Corruption is a very serious criminal offence. Any evidence of it will involve time in jail for those participating in it.
Where is this strange parallel universe of which you speak?
Let's just take the fast track PPE procurement scheme. A Panorama programme highlighted PPE provision contracts going to friends of Government Ministers and millions of pounds being made by friends of Government Ministers and in some cases for products unsuitable for use. Millions of pounds worth of product which will lie on a shelf until they wind up in a dumpster. Not corrupt at all apparently.
Or £53m on an invisible garden bridge over the Thames. Not corruption either apparently.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
Nothing to do with "convincing". The issue is that you'd generally have a Labour Wales FM and an SNP Scotland FM - both of whom are inclined to vote against Conservative governments on principle - plus whoever is in Stormont, and that's either the DUP - famous for saying "No" at every opportunity, even when it's against their own best interests - or SF - even more likely to say no on principle.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
Given that I would envisage this being primarily about decisions like going to war, I see little to no harm in gridlock. I would prefer that five people have to be convinced to send in the Navy, rather than a cowed PM who has just been on the receiving end of a tongue lashing from the White House. Indeed I think it gives the PM some much needed cover to say no or at least delay saying yes.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
Good grief. Where to even start with this.
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.
It's impossible to assess what impact the existence of the COTI would have had on Brexit - and indeed since I'm proposing it partly as a response to the rise in nationalism that that process seems to have accelerated, I'm not sure what clarity is gained by retroactively applying it to that situation. The process was gridlocked enough. It's by no means certain that it would have worsened that.
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
OK, I've gone back to your original proposal to have a think about other scenarios. You said: ... my proposal ... just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
So plausible future scenarios might include: - Trident renewal - Heathrow airport expansion - HS2/3/n - Whatever the current plan is for "levelling-up" the North of England
Big fat no on allowing veto power to the fringe nations on any of those. In particular, any investment decisions are fraught with danger as every region would want an equivalent spend in their own territory.
Also, you keep framing it as a check on England's power. But it works the other way as well - so Scotland/Wales/NI could unilaterally take the UK back into the EU, over the objections from England, if they chose. That alone is enough for this idea to be terrible.
No they couldn't. The COTI would not have any role in proposing anything, as I made very clear from the start. They could say no to something, not create something else.
Regarding Trident renewal, regrettably (as I'm not a Trident fan) I think it would pass no problems, with at least NI, probably Wales, probably not Scotland. However, the recent inexplicable investment in 260 missiles (up from the current 40)? Far tougher sell, and would have probably been a big boon for Boris to have been able to tell Uncle Joe he'd have to get back to him on that one.
As for making approval of investment decisions contingent on equivalent amounts being spent in the nations - isn't this exactly what happens at the moment anyway?
Right then. Who puts forward proposals to be voted on? And how do you move forward if they get voted down, and whoever proposed it insists it's of systemic importance it gets passed, and sends it straight back for reconsideration?
The UK Government would put them forward. What happens when it's a no? I don't know. Hopefully the policy would be revised. Personally I think the odd 'no' greatly strengthens the feeling that it's actually a Union.
6 cases of blood clots in 7 million doses of J&J....more likely you have a serious car accident on the way to getting your jab.
I have no idea of the rates of side effects in common non-prescription medicines, but I presume 1 in a million is seen as perfectly acceptable.
On Ars Technica I've seen multiple people say that aspirin is more risky, I don't know if they are correct, but that seems to be the reference point a lot of them are using.
Over what period of time, and what frequency of usage ? (They are probably correct, depending fairly reasonable assumptions, but any such comparison is necessarily complicated.)
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.
You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.
The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
Well, so several seem to say, though nobody has offered a remotely persuasive scenario whereby it would prove to be a nightmare. And a nightmare for who exactly? A nightmare for the PM? Heart of stone etc.
You do seem at times to swerve into being a Russia troll but here in a democracy a nightmare for the PM is actually a nightmare for the voters.
The voters get to choose Parliament and thus the PM. You're proposing all that gets thrown in the bin for grubby backroom deals between First Ministers.
What an atrocious mess. And to fix a non-problem too. Have the democratically elected UK Parliament decide UK issues, its not difficult.
I've racked up a truly scary amount of posts here, on all sorts of topics, with no particular slant except my own (admittedly unique) world view. I'm relatively anonymous (as most of us are to some extent - admittedly some are here using their full name), but not to a huge degree, and I am fairly frank about my life and experiences. I know very little about Russian trolling of any kind, but I strongly suspect that whoever they are, and whatever they do, being 'me' on PB would not be a very good use of Putin's rubles. So might I strongly suggest that however passionately you disagree with me, you refrain from calling me an agent (or in this case 'swerving into' being an agent, if you can do that) of a foreign power, if you wouldn't mind. I'll pay you the same courtesy, even when I think you're being an utter cock.
Not in reference to you or Philip, just as a general observation, I'd say that when it comes to internet forums Putin trolls are comfortably outnumbered by utter cocks.
I don't actually think Phil (or anyone here) is an utter cock, though I do admit to a sense of mild despair when we strongly disagree about something and I know I'm going to get peppered with 5th form debating club arguments till I chuck it in.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
Yet the number of people being vaccinated across the EU keeps rising every day. J&J will - like AZ - just not be given to younger people, particularly women.
I think the issue is that current Pfizer doses are already pretty much spoken for and they need to fill a gap of about 150m single dose J&J vaccines with 300m of something else.
Additionally Pfizer has raised their prices to look a lot more like Moderna so the thrifty EC won't want to commit to $25 per dose when they previously signed at $16 per dose and I'm told that Pfizer aren't giving out discounts becuase they know it's a seller's market because of all the AZ and now J&J issues that they aren't facing.
Besides which, 1. EU states can't deploy the Janssen jab, regardless of how eager they are to do so and whether or not they set an age limit for its use, so long as the company itself isn't willing to supply; and 2. if it ends up getting tarred with the same brush as AZ they're going to have trouble getting a lot of people to accept it.
Between this and the Sanofi fail, the Commission has been cursed by bad luck as well as bad judgment.
The issue is that they didn't get a backup for Sanofi. We also have deals with Sanofi, J&J and AZ for 60m, 52m and 100m doses respectively. On a per capita basis our programme is actually more reliant on those three vaccines. However, we also had a backup for Sanofi flopping and did a large deal with Novavax. That's what's missing from the EU scheme, their backup deal is with CureVac which has yet to give a first look at efficacy data. At the time these contracts were signed the Novavax delivery was set for around early Q2 and CureVac around end Q3. That's what will make the difference for us.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
There are whole campaigns and people whose job it is to 'dispatch' greys, to try and let the native reds back in.
I remember seeing red squirrels as a small boy.
As an adult I've only seen them once in the UK, on Brownsea Island.
Enchanting
I've seen reds a few times in the Lake District. Perky little fellas, insouciantly unaware of their own celebrity.
I believe there are some around Formby too, though I've never seen any there.
I saw one at Plas Newydd on Anglesey last year. Quite exciting for me, in fact the highlight of the whole bloody year.
Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63
'Tis but a flesh wound...
That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
Just humour him.
I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
'H' is a good analyst. I don't mind being out on a limb but it was comforting to find him sharing much of my 'new politics new punditry' perspective on Hartlepool and the wider post Brexit political landscape. We both recognize in our opposite but equally shrewd and dispassionate ways that a Labour hold there is not the most likely outcome and should it happen would be a genuine boost for the party's longer term GE24 prospects. Others, meanwhile, either cling to the old mantras and fail to put their thinking cap on, or allow partisanship to drive their punditry and predictions. And that's perfectly ok. There's no shame in that at all.
I think you're overreaching. The Hartlepool debate is really only about what happens to 19GE BXP voters: so they mostly transfer to CON, or LAB, or stay with Farage, or stay at home? Either way, we're all taking the 19GE result as the starting point, which is presumably after (or at least when) your supposed "new politics" started.
Overreaching? Possibly, but I don't think so. Hartlepool is just one event. If the Cons win it - which I expect - I'll be looking for an OTT market reaction on GE24 and Starmer markets and taking advantage.
I disagree btw that everyone is taking GE19 as their start point. That is exactly what lots of people are not doing. One hears much by way of "total DISASTER if they can't hold a rock solid working class northern seat like this!" and "losing Hartlepool spells DOOM!"
If you base your analysis on what happened at GE19 you would not come out with stuff like that.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63
'Tis but a flesh wound...
That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
Just humour him.
I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
'H' is a good analyst. I don't mind being out on a limb but it was comforting to find him sharing much of my 'new politics new punditry' perspective on Hartlepool and the wider post Brexit political landscape. We both recognize in our opposite but equally shrewd and dispassionate ways that a Labour hold there is not the most likely outcome and should it happen would be a genuine boost for the party's longer term GE24 prospects. Others, meanwhile, either cling to the old mantras and fail to put their thinking cap on, or allow partisanship to drive their punditry and predictions. And that's perfectly ok. There's no shame in that at all.
I think you're overreaching. The Hartlepool debate is really only about what happens to 19GE BXP voters: so they mostly transfer to CON, or LAB, or stay with Farage, or stay at home? Either way, we're all taking the 19GE result as the starting point, which is presumably after (or at least when) your supposed "new politics" started.
Overreaching? Possibly, but I don't think so. Hartlepool is just one event. If the Cons win it - which I expect - I'll be looking for an OTT market reaction on GE24 and Starmer markets and taking advantage.
I disagree btw that everyone is taking GE19 as their start point. That is exactly what lots of people are not doing. One hears much by way of "total DISASTER if they can't hold a rock solid working class northern seat like this!" and "losing Hartlepool spells DOOM!"
If you base your analysis on what happened at GE19 you would not come out with stuff like that.
The market reaction is a very good point. We don’t have anything like so significant a set of elections again until the GE do we? That being the case, it seems quite likely that May will trigger the low point of Starmer’s assessed chances on the market. He’s bound to have some better days ahead to move things around.
Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63
'Tis but a flesh wound...
That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
Just humour him.
I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
'H' is a good analyst. I don't mind being out on a limb but it was comforting to find him sharing much of my 'new politics new punditry' perspective on Hartlepool and the wider post Brexit political landscape. We both recognize in our opposite but equally shrewd and dispassionate ways that a Labour hold there is not the most likely outcome and should it happen would be a genuine boost for the party's longer term GE24 prospects. Others, meanwhile, either cling to the old mantras and fail to put their thinking cap on, or allow partisanship to drive their punditry and predictions. And that's perfectly ok. There's no shame in that at all.
Alternatively the two of you have fallen down the same simplistic rabbit hole and not engaged in critical thinking.
It's worth noting that despite the BXP vote the swing in Hartlepool was comparable to some Red Wall gains in 2019. If the BXP vote were simply mistakenly considered Tory votes then the swing would have been ludicrously big compared to the Red Wall generally.
Unlikely that I would have not engaged in critical thinking and thus fallen down a rabbit hole. But noted. Also your comment on the swing, which is interesting. Point of order, though, is that I'm not recasting the BXP vote as all Tory. I do, however, think it will break heavily in that direction for reasons previously explained. We'll soon find out anyway. It will be fascinating regardless. Much to be learned.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
Pie? Or stew?
What was that film/documentary where someone pulls into a place which has a "Rabbits for sale" sign outside. "Pets or meat?" they are asked.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
It seems a pretty ludicrous rule, really.
If they are that much of a menace, have a cull. If the concern is release in particular parts of the country, just ban releasing them there.
But honestly what is the point of making it generally illegal to release a grey squirrel if it's been captured (e.g. an injured one)? The grey squirrel is so widespread that impact of the rule on the population must be utterly negligible, and it creates "law-breakers" out of people who just don't know the rule (albeit I suspect it isn't enforced).
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
Pie? Or stew?
What was that film/documentary where someone pulls into a place which has a "Rabbits for sale" sign outside. "Pets or meat?" they are asked.
When we moved to this farm, the indoor had a major groundhog problem. Talking with our mailman, he asked permission to hunt them with his terriers. "Some mighty fine eating, them varmint!" were his words. We no longer have a problem, but I have still not tasted groundhog. Spit roasted guinea-pig (cuy) in Ecuador, yes
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
Pie? Or stew?
What was that film/documentary where someone pulls into a place which has a "Rabbits for sale" sign outside. "Pets or meat?" they are asked.
When we moved to this farm, the indoor had a major groundhog problem. Talking with our mailman, he asked permission to hunt them with his terriers. "Some mighty fine eating, them varmint!" were his words. We no longer have a problem, but I have still not tasted groundhog. Spit roasted guinea-pig (cuy) in Ecuador, yes
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
Pie? Or stew?
What was that film/documentary where someone pulls into a place which has a "Rabbits for sale" sign outside. "Pets or meat?" they are asked.
When we moved to this farm, the indoor had a major groundhog problem. Talking with our mailman, he asked permission to hunt them with his terriers. "Some mighty fine eating, them varmint!" were his words. We no longer have a problem, but I have still not tasted groundhog. Spit roasted guinea-pig (cuy) in Ecuador, yes
Looks like it would be quite porky.
Supposed to taste like a mild wild boar (groundhogs that is)
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
Pie? Or stew?
What was that film/documentary where someone pulls into a place which has a "Rabbits for sale" sign outside. "Pets or meat?" they are asked.
When we moved to this farm, the indoor had a major groundhog problem. Talking with our mailman, he asked permission to hunt them with his terriers. "Some mighty fine eating, them varmint!" were his words. We no longer have a problem, but I have still not tasted groundhog. Spit roasted guinea-pig (cuy) in Ecuador, yes
Looks like it would be quite porky.
Supposed to taste like a mild wild boar (groundhogs that is)
6 cases of blood clots in 7 million doses of J&J....more likely you have a serious car accident on the way to getting your jab.
I have no idea of the rates of side effects in common non-prescription medicines, but I presume 1 in a million is seen as perfectly acceptable.
On Ars Technica I've seen multiple people say that aspirin is more risky, I don't know if they are correct, but that seems to be the reference point a lot of them are using.
Over what period of time, and what frequency of usage ? (They are probably correct, depending fairly reasonable assumptions, but any such comparison is necessarily complicated.)
Nobody expanded on the point. I expect that there is a huge difference between taking an aspirin when you have a headache and taking an aspirin every day as some will do.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
And us? I can't remember if we were relying on J&J....
We're not. Our programme is reliant on Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax. From now until the end of July. That covers all of the remaining 20m adults under 50 who still need it.
However, we are relying on Pfizer FROM THE EU
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
Leon, you're panicking again. Relax a bit! I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
I'm really NOT panicking. I'm sipping tea and calmly speculating
Jolly good. Speculate away. Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped. But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze. Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels. I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
What a sad story. I would have released them into the wild, giving them a tiny chance. But I see your dilemma
Yes, I think knowing what we now know, we would have done that too. At least, the one which wasn't injured. But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I would have thought the uninjured juvenile might have a fighting chance, if it could climb a tree
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
Legally they are. Not sure they should be.
Yes, it is in fact illegal to release a Grey squirrel once it has been captured. Once you've picked it up, there's only one legal action. (Well, several I suppose, depending on your method of choice)
It seems a pretty ludicrous rule, really.
If they are that much of a menace, have a cull. If the concern is release in particular parts of the country, just ban releasing them there.
But honestly what is the point of making it generally illegal to release a grey squirrel if it's been captured (e.g. an injured one)? The grey squirrel is so widespread that impact of the rule on the population must be utterly negligible, and it creates "law-breakers" out of people who just don't know the rule (albeit I suspect it isn't enforced).
Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63
'Tis but a flesh wound...
That is of 2019 Labour voters though, some 2019 LD voters are now voting Labour and some 2019 Labour voters are now voting Green
Just humour him.
I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
'H' is a good analyst. I don't mind being out on a limb but it was comforting to find him sharing much of my 'new politics new punditry' perspective on Hartlepool and the wider post Brexit political landscape. We both recognize in our opposite but equally shrewd and dispassionate ways that a Labour hold there is not the most likely outcome and should it happen would be a genuine boost for the party's longer term GE24 prospects. Others, meanwhile, either cling to the old mantras and fail to put their thinking cap on, or allow partisanship to drive their punditry and predictions. And that's perfectly ok. There's no shame in that at all.
I think you're overreaching. The Hartlepool debate is really only about what happens to 19GE BXP voters: so they mostly transfer to CON, or LAB, or stay with Farage, or stay at home? Either way, we're all taking the 19GE result as the starting point, which is presumably after (or at least when) your supposed "new politics" started.
Overreaching? Possibly, but I don't think so. Hartlepool is just one event. If the Cons win it - which I expect - I'll be looking for an OTT market reaction on GE24 and Starmer markets and taking advantage.
I disagree btw that everyone is taking GE19 as their start point. That is exactly what lots of people are not doing. One hears much by way of "total DISASTER if they can't hold a rock solid working class northern seat like this!" and "losing Hartlepool spells DOOM!"
If you base your analysis on what happened at GE19 you would not come out with stuff like that.
The market reaction is a very good point. We don’t have anything like so significant a set of elections again until the GE do we? That being the case, it seems quite likely that May will trigger the low point of Starmer’s assessed chances on the market. He’s bound to have some better days ahead to move things around.
Yes. And if you share my confidence that Next PM is a 2 horse race, Johnson or Starmer, because they'll both still be there for GE24 (or 23), then the current Starmer price of 6 is excellent, let alone if it goes any higher. You'll be able to lay it back at half that well before the election.
Europe are more f**ked than a dockside hooker/stepmom on Pornhub.
Yet the number of people being vaccinated across the EU keeps rising every day. J&J will - like AZ - just not be given to younger people, particularly women.
I think the issue is that current Pfizer doses are already pretty much spoken for and they need to fill a gap of about 150m single dose J&J vaccines with 300m of something else.
Additionally Pfizer has raised their prices to look a lot more like Moderna so the thrifty EC won't want to commit to $25 per dose when they previously signed at $16 per dose and I'm told that Pfizer aren't giving out discounts becuase they know it's a seller's market because of all the AZ and now J&J issues that they aren't facing.
Besides which, 1. EU states can't deploy the Janssen jab, regardless of how eager they are to do so and whether or not they set an age limit for its use, so long as the company itself isn't willing to supply; and 2. if it ends up getting tarred with the same brush as AZ they're going to have trouble getting a lot of people to accept it.
Between this and the Sanofi fail, the Commission has been cursed by bad luck as well as bad judgment.
The issue is that they didn't get a backup for Sanofi. We also have deals with Sanofi, J&J and AZ for 60m, 52m and 100m doses respectively. On a per capita basis our programme is actually more reliant on those three vaccines. However, we also had a backup for Sanofi flopping and did a large deal with Novavax. That's what's missing from the EU scheme, their backup deal is with CureVac which has yet to give a first look at efficacy data. At the time these contracts were signed the Novavax delivery was set for around early Q2 and CureVac around end Q3. That's what will make the difference for us.
Comments
But it’s not an option long-term.
Never been even a single day the EU have matched the UK's total. Interesting that the USA didn't see an Easter slowdown.
We could have a far more constructive debate if you avoided really sloppy straw man arguments like these - I propose ideas presupposing a base level of intelligence, try to live up to it.
"On 19 March, Facebook informed us that our page, Ville de Bitche, was no longer online, on the basis that it was 'in violation of conditions applying to Facebook pages',"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56731027
Quite right, cancelling the French is always correct.
I have no idea of the rates of side effects in common non-prescription medicines, but I presume 1 in a million is seen as perfectly acceptable.
It would be infighting and arse-covering and pass-the-parcel whilst military people and civilians die.
Which is not that far from the COVID issue, really.
I'm still moderately impressed by the Committee of 4 with England having 2 votes, so the other three together can block.
Does Germany have any input from the Lander to national decisions - suspect not.
Off course it's also a squirrel - the interesting line for the next 2 months (except for the real value of having a vaccine-enthusiasm competition) is how many people have not had a vaccine up to three weeks ago, which is the measure of vulnerability.
Whatever happened to the story that Germany had bought its own vaccines outside the EU scheme? Shouldn't their line be higher than the EU's?
Regarding going to war - no, I am not against going to war in principle - but neither am I against making it harder politically to do so than it currently is. That doesn't seem to me to be in any way unreasonable.
I didn't cherry pick that example at all - it was something current that seemed to be a good fit. I'm happy to look at any plausible future scenarios, though obviously not Phil's ludicrous 'PM delays retaking the Shard whilst he rings around the leaders' bullshite.
I thought US vaccine-makers were already indemnified.
https://twitter.com/bfmtv/status/1381969149572734978
Also interesting, given complaints this side of the pond, how reliable US supply is in relation to the UK's
(Salt and pepper squid, if you were wondering my menu choice....)
Currently the PM doesn't have to go to Parliament to do acts of war, its under Royal Prerogative. You're wanting five Parliaments involved where currently none are. 😕
Sadiq Khan (Lab): 51%
Shaun Bailey (Con): 29%
Sian Berry (Green): 8%
Luisa Porrit (LD): 8%
Peter Gammons (UKIP): 1%
Another: 2%"
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1381928720160731137
Cummings was right, the senior civil service isn’t fit for purpose and needs clearing out from the top.
What it does do is increase the complexity of rolling it out. I think the NHS could handle it, but other less centralised systems might struggle.
It does go to show that Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have really made absolutely incredible products though, Novavax looks excellent too though it would need to be confirmed in the same PIV process as the other two.
Just look at the side effect data of the smallpox vaccine used to rid the world of that disease (not the new and improved versions). While deaths were 1:1M, other severe side effects were intolerably common by today's standards:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069029/
There is no earthly reason why the existence of the COTI as a rubber-stamp for large scale military commitments would do anything, or even have a means to do anything, about this, just as, whilst it is customary to have a parliamentary vote about large scale military commitments, such targeted strikes currently happen without one.
That does not mitigate poor spring 2020 EU decisions, or the propaganda pratfalls since New Year.
... my proposal ... just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
So plausible future scenarios might include:
- Trident renewal
- Heathrow airport expansion
- HS2/3/n
- Whatever the current plan is for "levelling-up" the North of England
Big fat no on allowing veto power to the fringe nations on any of those. In particular, any investment decisions are fraught with danger as every region would want an equivalent spend in their own territory.
Also, you keep framing it as a check on England's power. But it works the other way as well - so Scotland/Wales/NI could unilaterally take the UK back into the EU, over the objections from England, if they chose. That alone is enough for this idea to be terrible.
1 - A few blood-clot (?) type occurrences.
2 - They lost 15m production when an operative mixed up AZ ingredients with J&J, and they decided to dedicate the factory to J&J. That will cause a switchover-delay.
Its worth noting that in the USA the last official "declaration of war" was in 1942.
And I still can't believe UKIP actually found a candidate called Gammons.
1. Will Khan win on the first round?
2. How many votes will the candidate in last place receive?
3. How many deposits will be saved? (On that poll, perhaps not so uncertain. Four saved deposits. Any idea what happens to lost election deposits? Do they just get thrown into the local authority budget?)
Regarding Trident renewal, regrettably (as I'm not a Trident fan) I think it would pass no problems, with at least NI, probably Wales, probably not Scotland. However, the recent inexplicable investment in 260 missiles (up from the current 40)? Far tougher sell, and would have probably been a big boon for Boris to have been able to tell Uncle Joe he'd have to get back to him on that one.
As for making approval of investment decisions contingent on equivalent amounts being spent in the nations - isn't this exactly what happens at the moment anyway?
Utter madness. Is there a single nation with a strong military stupid enough to do a scheme like yours?
4. Will the gap between second and third be smaller than the gap between first and second?
They explain the ERP rationale
No CEV sorts allowed
https://wst.tv/dcms-statement-on-the-erp-and-the-clinically-extremely-vulnerable/
As an adult I've only seen them once in the UK, on Brownsea Island.
Enchanting
But I'm not sure we would have been right to do so. Probably best they have a clean quick end at the hands of the RSPCA than a violent one at the hands of a cat or dog, or a long starvation.
There's no good answer. But deciding, even inadvertently, who the winners and losers will be sits uneasy.
I believe there are some around Formby too, though I've never seen any there.
These decisions have big impacts on the countries concerned, and they have no say except that which their contingent of MPs grants them, so yes, I am in favour of them getting a limited say. I think this would result in better and stronger policy, and one where all could be satisified that the decision was made jointly.
If you heard that the Government wished to purchase 220 extra nukes, but had been talked down to an extra 60, the balance to be spent on conventional forces that we WILL actually use, would you have have been particularly distraught? I find that odd.
Additionally Pfizer has raised their prices to look a lot more like Moderna so the thrifty EC won't want to commit to $25 per dose when they previously signed at $16 per dose and I'm told that Pfizer aren't giving out discounts becuase they know it's a seller's market because of all the AZ and now J&J issues that they aren't facing.
As far as I know all Federal countries have defence as a Federal not a States issue.
How many nukes we have, if any, should be an issue for Parliament. Not horse trading between First Ministers.
I had them in the roofspace recently, took a while and several visits from the trapper guy to get rid of them.
As an aside, try and pay for everything over £100 on a credit card, you get so much protection that way.
And if a predator did take it, the death would probably be swift
Something about killing an innocent healthy mammal for no good reason seems wrong: they aren't vermin
It's worth noting that despite the BXP vote the swing in Hartlepool was comparable to some Red Wall gains in 2019. If the BXP vote were simply mistakenly considered Tory votes then the swing would have been ludicrously big compared to the Red Wall generally.
Between this and the Sanofi fail, the Commission has been cursed by bad luck as well as bad judgment.
CDU/CSU + Green
CDU/CSU + Green + FDP
CDU/CSU + Green + SPD
Green + SPD + FDP
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Green + SPD + Left doesn't have the votes in most polls.
If they were about to get large volumes of Novavax this would be less of a problem.
Let's just take the fast track PPE procurement scheme. A Panorama programme highlighted PPE provision contracts going to friends of Government Ministers and millions of pounds being made by friends of Government Ministers and in some cases for products unsuitable for use. Millions of pounds worth of product which will lie on a shelf until they wind up in a dumpster. Not corrupt at all apparently.
Or £53m on an invisible garden bridge over the Thames. Not corruption either apparently.
(They are probably correct, depending fairly reasonable assumptions, but any such comparison is necessarily complicated.)
I disagree btw that everyone is taking GE19 as their start point. That is exactly what lots of people are not doing. One hears much by way of "total DISASTER if they can't hold a rock solid working class northern seat like this!" and "losing Hartlepool spells DOOM!"
If you base your analysis on what happened at GE19 you would not come out with stuff like that.
https://www.theguardian.com/food/shortcuts/2019/feb/04/view-to-a-cull-is-grey-squirrel-the-ultimate-sustainable-meat
Only they could link it to xenophobia, mind.
If they are that much of a menace, have a cull. If the concern is release in particular parts of the country, just ban releasing them there.
But honestly what is the point of making it generally illegal to release a grey squirrel if it's been captured (e.g. an injured one)? The grey squirrel is so widespread that impact of the rule on the population must be utterly negligible, and it creates "law-breakers" out of people who just don't know the rule (albeit I suspect it isn't enforced).
Egypt seizes the Ever Given, saying its owners owe nearly $1 billion for Suez Canal traffic jam
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/04/13/ever-given-seized-egypt/
And I thought dinosaurs were extinct in Wales
Also landlords extremely annoyed that they cannot match their English counterparts until 26th April
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/novavax-says-supply-shortages-delaying-full-speed-production-of-its-covid-19-vaccine-2021