The European Commission is getting ready to launch legal proceedings against vaccine producer AstraZeneca, according to five EU diplomats.
The Commission raised the matter at a meeting of ambassadors Wednesday, during which the majority of EU countries said they would support suing the company over complaints it massively failed to deliver pledged doses to the bloc.
One diplomat clarified that the point of the legal proceedings is to make it mandatory for AstraZeneca to provide the doses set out in its EU contract.
I can't see how the lie holds beyond the immediate
The one lesson BoZo learned from Brexit is that it doesn't have to.
The campaign lies he told didn't survive beyond the end of the count.
Tomorrow's headline is the event horizon.
Out of interest, what lies did he tell?
No customs border in the Irish Sea? Protection for army veterans against vexatious prosecutions? Both manifesto pledges. Lioar even went to the DUP conference to state his NI pledge.
Thats just two. How about "I did not shag that musician Carrie"...?
You are you indulging in misogyny and abuse to Carrie again
I just do not understand why you feel a need to be this way
I was asked to state what lies he told. That he didn't have an affair whilst Carrie is pregnant is one. How on earth is that abuse to Carrie - she is the victim here and has my sympathy.
It is the way you express yourself at times and your posts are important and would improve immeasurably if you were maybe a little less school boyish
The NATION would improve immeasurably is this amoral bumbling liar wasn't running it. The Conservative Party used to have basic principles and decency. I am arguing for a return to these basic standards.
I agree, though I cannot help but think that many who pine for the days of those basic principles and decency would not have said the party had them at the time. It's like when someone quits a party and attacks it, and opponents who used to condemn them suddenly talk about what a principled, talented person they are.
Like Unionists who suddenly have respect for Alex RT Salmond.
I respect his skills as a politician and I would also accept that he had a slightly better understanding of the concept of business than Sturgeon, a bar which would challenge the most able of limbo dancers, in fairness, but the man gets no respect from me.
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has revealed that production at two of its UK manufacturing plants is to be suspended due to a shortage of parts.
The company said operations at the Castle Bromwich (Birmingham) and Halewood (Liverpool) sites would be affected through a "limited period" of non-production from next Monday.
It blamed a COVID-19 crisis issue of semi-conductor shortages, widely flagged by the industry as a whole and blamed for disruption to schedules among rivals and at other firms which rely on computer chips.
JLR's UK plants, including this one in Solihull, employ 40,000 people. The shortage of computer chips is not affecting output at Solihull
JLR - which has the UK's largest car manufacturing operation - said it was unclear how long the stoppages would last but it insisted production at the Solihull plant would continue as normal.
Its statement said: "Like other automotive manufacturers, we are currently experiencing some COVID-19 supply chain disruption, including the global availability of semi-conductors, which is having an impact on our production schedules and our ability to meet global demand for some of our vehicles.
"As a result, we have adjusted production schedules for certain vehicles which means that our Castle Bromwich and Halewood manufacturing plants will be operating a limited period of non-production from Monday 26th April.
Jaguar's otherwise mystifying decision to stop platform sharing with LR must mean Tata are preparing to split the brands and sell off Jaguar.
It's hard to see where Jaguar go from here. Their traditional niche (badly made large saloons for golf club bores) has gone and they are trying to pivot to an electric only brand without the economies of scale that the major OEMs have.
Me. I'm waiting to buy an affordable Jaguar electric.
I love my XE.
I was told the other day, and I don't know how true it is that if an electric car breaks down its virtually impossible to move as they auto brake . No idea if its true but be v careful before you buy....
Treasury rejected all lobbying from Greensill and it ultimately got Cameron nowhere
Good news for Rishi
It certainly did get Cameron somewhere.
It got him exposed as an hypocritical pound shop Blair who panders to sleazy money lenders.
I get we have a weird thing about what PMs should do once they leave office, I like that TMay is sticking around, but oftentimes they're well off at the least, is it too much to think they should be able to find non grubby work?
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
SNP + Greens + Alba = 51% on the list and 50% on the constituency. I'd call that pretty tight.
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has revealed that production at two of its UK manufacturing plants is to be suspended due to a shortage of parts.
The company said operations at the Castle Bromwich (Birmingham) and Halewood (Liverpool) sites would be affected through a "limited period" of non-production from next Monday.
It blamed a COVID-19 crisis issue of semi-conductor shortages, widely flagged by the industry as a whole and blamed for disruption to schedules among rivals and at other firms which rely on computer chips.
JLR's UK plants, including this one in Solihull, employ 40,000 people. The shortage of computer chips is not affecting output at Solihull
JLR - which has the UK's largest car manufacturing operation - said it was unclear how long the stoppages would last but it insisted production at the Solihull plant would continue as normal.
Its statement said: "Like other automotive manufacturers, we are currently experiencing some COVID-19 supply chain disruption, including the global availability of semi-conductors, which is having an impact on our production schedules and our ability to meet global demand for some of our vehicles.
"As a result, we have adjusted production schedules for certain vehicles which means that our Castle Bromwich and Halewood manufacturing plants will be operating a limited period of non-production from Monday 26th April.
I have a few friends who work at Nissan Sunderland that report they're struggling with the same issues.
I still can't buy a graphics card for my PC either. Serious lack of capacity in semiconductor manufacturing.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
SNP + Greens + Alba = 51% on the list and 50% on the constituency. I'd call that pretty tight.
Con + Lab + LD = 44% on the list, so a clean margin in favour of the nationalists there.
Which seems weird. Who's voting for a unionist on the constituency and nationalist on the list?
Treasury rejected all lobbying from Greensill and it ultimately got Cameron nowhere
Good news for Rishi
It certainly did get Cameron somewhere.
It got him exposed as an hypocritical pound shop Blair who panders to sleazy money lenders.
I get we have a weird thing about what PMs should do once they leave office, I like that TMay is sticking around, but oftentimes they're well off at the least, is it too much to think they should be able to find non grubby work?
I think we have a choice. We can accept they will go on to find work that might sometimes seem conflicted; or we must boost their pay and their pension considerably and prohibit it. It’s one or the other.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Today's Comres has the SNP on only 46% on the Holyrood constituency vote however with the Scottish Conservatives up to 25%.
That would be a swing of 1.75% from the SNP to the SCons since 2016 and could see the Conservatives gain Perthshire South and Kinrosshire from the SNP on UNS (especially as there was an 8% LD vote there in 2016 for the Conservatives to squeeze) https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1385138364224000002?s=20
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
The Met Office bump thier compute platform every half decade or so.
I recall my undergrad Stats lecturer being somewhat amused at the Met Office's perennial insistence that they could forecast the weather perfectly, if only they were given a computer powerful enough to calculate everything. He was, I believe, of the view that the medium term weather forecast is essentially unknowable with 100% accuracy.
I bet the new system still predicts barbecue summers every single April.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
You're allowed to know about it. You just can't 'publish' anything to do with it, or the fact it exists. I think.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
The SNP could miss out on a majority at the Holyrood election, and support for independence is at its lowest level in over a year, according to the latest polls.
The Savanta ComRes survey for The Scotsman predicted that the party will return 63 MSPs in total – two short of a majority – the same number as in 2016.
However there would still be a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, with the Scottish Greens forecast to return eight MSPs, two more than 2016, and the party predicted to secure 7% of the list vote in 2021.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
It is not. As a rule these things can't be published. The moderator doesn't know whether one exists or not, but it is better to errr on the side of caution.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
In 2016 there were not unambiguous commitments in the manifestos for a new referendum. There is today. That's a clear material change of circumstances.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
SNP + Greens + Alba = 51% on the list and 50% on the constituency. I'd call that pretty tight.
Con + Lab + LD = 44% on the list, so a clean margin in favour of the nationalists there.
Which seems weird. Who's voting for a unionist on the constituency and nationalist on the list?
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
You're allowed to know about it. You just can't 'publish' anything to do with it, or the fact it exists. I think.
The rules AIUI, and IANAE on this is that those who are subject to the injunction are not only banned from reporting anything about its substance but also banned from disclosing that they are so injuncted. My understanding is that all reputable news sources are made aware that such an order has been given and are accordingly similarly banned from reporting or disclosing the existence of the injunction. Discussion of the existence of the injunction that is published on a website like this might well amount to a breach of the order. Hence @PBModerator's request.
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
In 2016 there were not unambiguous commitments in the manifestos for a new referendum. There is today. That's a clear material change of circumstances.
No, the Greens were pro independence in 2016 as well as 2021, page 11 of their 2016 manifesto said 'If there is another vote on independence for Scotland we will push for Scotland to be independent.'
The current UK Tory government was elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the 2014 referendum as a once in a generation vote in 2019 and will deliver that and refuse a legal indyref2
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
You're allowed to know about it. You just can't 'publish' anything to do with it, or the fact it exists. I think.
The rules AIUI, and IANAE on this is that those who are subject to the injunction are not only banned from reporting anything about its substance but also banned from disclosing that they are so injuncted. My understanding is that all reputable news sources are made aware that such an order has been given and are accordingly similarly banned from reporting or disclosing the existence of the injunction. Discussion of the existence of the injunction that is published on a website like this might well amount to a breach of the order. Hence @PBModerator's request.
Didn't we go through a spate of these injuctions a few years ago, which always seemed to lead to someone in Parliament naming what can't be said thus circumventing the injunction since Parliament must always be able to be reported.
If there were a superinjunction about a politician I always assumed it would last about five minutes before a rival politician said something in Parliament.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
It is not. As a rule these things can't be published. The moderator doesn't know whether one exists or not, but it is better to errr on the side of caution.
there was talk of an article in the SUN on some scandal and much alleged speculation on MSM , Sturgeon denied it, but if there are any super injunctions they cannot be mentioned anyway.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
You're allowed to know about it. You just can't 'publish' anything to do with it, or the fact it exists. I think.
The rules AIUI, and IANAE on this is that those who are subject to the injunction are not only banned from reporting anything about its substance but also banned from disclosing that they are so injuncted. My understanding is that all reputable news sources are made aware that such an order has been given and are accordingly similarly banned from reporting or disclosing the existence of the injunction. Discussion of the existence of the injunction that is published on a website like this might well amount to a breach of the order. Hence @PBModerator's request.
Lol completely Kafkaesque. Why do judges go along with this shit ?
The Met Office bump thier compute platform every half decade or so.
Now partnering with Microsoft though.
So forecasting the weather can now be done by opening your Windows.
While you are in your Office?
It does give a good Outlook on the weather.
I hope they Excel at predicting when it will rain.
Etc etc.
I preferred it in the old days, when weathermen had an air of military power. Point at the maps with sticks like an army commander, that's what they used to do.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
In 2016 there were not unambiguous commitments in the manifestos for a new referendum. There is today. That's a clear material change of circumstances.
No, the Greens were pro independence in 2016 as well as 2021, page 11 of their 2016 manifesto said 'If there is another vote on independence for Scotland we will push for Scotland to be independent.'
The current UK Tory government was elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the 2014 referendum as a once in a generation vote in 2019 and will deliver that and refuse a legal indyref2
The 2016 Greens wanted to build support for independence and would campaign for it if there was a referendum but they had no unambiguous commitments to one in the last Holyrood term. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36025012
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has revealed that production at two of its UK manufacturing plants is to be suspended due to a shortage of parts.
The company said operations at the Castle Bromwich (Birmingham) and Halewood (Liverpool) sites would be affected through a "limited period" of non-production from next Monday.
It blamed a COVID-19 crisis issue of semi-conductor shortages, widely flagged by the industry as a whole and blamed for disruption to schedules among rivals and at other firms which rely on computer chips.
JLR's UK plants, including this one in Solihull, employ 40,000 people. The shortage of computer chips is not affecting output at Solihull
JLR - which has the UK's largest car manufacturing operation - said it was unclear how long the stoppages would last but it insisted production at the Solihull plant would continue as normal.
Its statement said: "Like other automotive manufacturers, we are currently experiencing some COVID-19 supply chain disruption, including the global availability of semi-conductors, which is having an impact on our production schedules and our ability to meet global demand for some of our vehicles.
"As a result, we have adjusted production schedules for certain vehicles which means that our Castle Bromwich and Halewood manufacturing plants will be operating a limited period of non-production from Monday 26th April.
I have a few friends who work at Nissan Sunderland that report they're struggling with the same issues.
It’s a worldwide shortage, and will continue in some form for the next year at least.
Another example of the government only pursuing headlines and having no interest in the policy announced. Last year they launched the "Pick for Britain" campaign to recruit a domestic workforce to pick fruit and vegetables. Not a total success in terms of numbers but ticked all the boxes - a patriotic name, jobs for us not foreigners, support Brexit.
The scheme has been scrapped. Which means that farms will go back to importing literal coachloads of eastern Europeans to do the harvest.
Why does it matter? A significant driver for Brexit in eastern England is the "invasion" of people from eastern Europe to work in the food and agriculture sector. These are jobs that British people do not want to do. So the government make a lot of noise about removing migrants in favour of patriotic jobs for plucky locals, and once the headlines are gained and the policy weaved into knowledge, it gets withdrawn.
Which means that despite the policy of continuing migration of labour, the government will get the credit for ending it. Its smart politics, but I can't see how the lie holds beyond the immediate - the foreigner workforce will still be here.
You're having a shocker this week, Rochdale. This is more BS.
Pick for Britain - a campaign to provide jobs for people not working through COVID. Hasn't worked well - partly because East Euro workers were back in from about May 2020. Fine. Let it go. COVID is nearly over.
The seasonal workers scheme has been under development for 2-3 years, and continues.
Seasonal workers where needed have never been a problem for Brexiteers afaik. Certainly not for me.
Indeed! Which is why Lincolnshire so heavily voted for leave. Because they have no problem with all the foreigners taking over places like Boston and Wisbech.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
You're allowed to know about it. You just can't 'publish' anything to do with it, or the fact it exists. I think.
The rules AIUI, and IANAE on this is that those who are subject to the injunction are not only banned from reporting anything about its substance but also banned from disclosing that they are so injuncted. My understanding is that all reputable news sources are made aware that such an order has been given and are accordingly similarly banned from reporting or disclosing the existence of the injunction. Discussion of the existence of the injunction that is published on a website like this might well amount to a breach of the order. Hence @PBModerator's request.
Lol completely Kafkaesque. Why do judges go along with this shit ?
Well, because the Sun reporting that they have been the subject of an injunction in relation to some pop singer who was having allegedly having an affair with their nanny was deemed rather pointless and made the law look even more of an arse than normal.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
You're allowed to know about it. You just can't 'publish' anything to do with it, or the fact it exists. I think.
The rules AIUI, and IANAE on this is that those who are subject to the injunction are not only banned from reporting anything about its substance but also banned from disclosing that they are so injuncted. My understanding is that all reputable news sources are made aware that such an order has been given and are accordingly similarly banned from reporting or disclosing the existence of the injunction. Discussion of the existence of the injunction that is published on a website like this might well amount to a breach of the order. Hence @PBModerator's request.
Lol completely Kafkaesque. Why do judges go along with this shit ?
AIUI only applies to England as well, so if you use a vpn and google something there is nothing stopping foreign press publishing it online and it appearing in searches anyway. Imagine only the lawyers do well out of them.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
In 2016 there were not unambiguous commitments in the manifestos for a new referendum. There is today. That's a clear material change of circumstances.
No, the Greens were pro independence in 2016 as well as 2021, page 11 of their 2016 manifesto said 'If there is another vote on independence for Scotland we will push for Scotland to be independent.'
The current UK Tory government was elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the 2014 referendum as a once in a generation vote in 2019 and will deliver that and refuse a legal indyref2
The 2016 Greens wanted to build support for independence and would campaign for it if there was a referendum but they had no unambiguous commitments to one in the last Holyrood term. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36025012
They do now. Change
The Greens in 2016 were pro independence and did not rule out another vote in the 2016-2021 parliament.
No SNP majority as in 2011, we Tories will easily refuse indyref2, we would refuse it anyway even with an SNP majority to deliver our winning 2019 manifesto commitment that 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but no SNP majority just makes it easy to do so
Another example of the government only pursuing headlines and having no interest in the policy announced. Last year they launched the "Pick for Britain" campaign to recruit a domestic workforce to pick fruit and vegetables. Not a total success in terms of numbers but ticked all the boxes - a patriotic name, jobs for us not foreigners, support Brexit.
The scheme has been scrapped. Which means that farms will go back to importing literal coachloads of eastern Europeans to do the harvest.
Why does it matter? A significant driver for Brexit in eastern England is the "invasion" of people from eastern Europe to work in the food and agriculture sector. These are jobs that British people do not want to do. So the government make a lot of noise about removing migrants in favour of patriotic jobs for plucky locals, and once the headlines are gained and the policy weaved into knowledge, it gets withdrawn.
Which means that despite the policy of continuing migration of labour, the government will get the credit for ending it. Its smart politics, but I can't see how the lie holds beyond the immediate - the foreigner workforce will still be here.
You're having a shocker this week, Rochdale. This is more BS.
Pick for Britain - a campaign to provide jobs for people not working through COVID. Hasn't worked well - partly because East Euro workers were back in from about May 2020. Fine. Let it go. COVID is nearly over.
The seasonal workers scheme has been under development for 2-3 years, and continues.
Seasonal workers where needed have never been a problem for Brexiteers afaik. Certainly not for me.
Indeed! Which is why Lincolnshire so heavily voted for leave. Because they have no problem with all the foreigners taking over places like Boston and Wisbech.
Maybe Brexit wasn't about seasonal workers on farms? Or just about immigration at all? 🤔
Any discussion of immigration tends to end up discussing net migration being in the hundreds of thousands. Seasonal workers who come and leave then come and leave the next year etc have 0 impact on net migration over the long term.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
In 2016 there were not unambiguous commitments in the manifestos for a new referendum. There is today. That's a clear material change of circumstances.
No, the Greens were pro independence in 2016 as well as 2021, page 11 of their 2016 manifesto said 'If there is another vote on independence for Scotland we will push for Scotland to be independent.'
The current UK Tory government was elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the 2014 referendum as a once in a generation vote in 2019 and will deliver that and refuse a legal indyref2
The 2016 Greens wanted to build support for independence and would campaign for it if there was a referendum but they had no unambiguous commitments to one in the last Holyrood term. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36025012
They do now. Change
The Greens in 2016 were pro independence and did not rule out another vote in the 2016-2021 parliament.
No SNP majority as in 2011, we Tories will easily refuse indyref2, we would refuse it anyway even with an SNP majority to deliver our 2019 manifesto commitment that 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but no SNP majority just makes it easy to do so
Did not rule out a referendum and explicitly commit to a referendum are two completely different things.
2016 the Greens had no commitment to it. They do now. If Greens & SNP get a majority that's a majority elected on a commitment to a referendum.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
It is not. As a rule these things can't be published. The moderator doesn't know whether one exists or not, but it is better to errr on the side of caution.
Very grand to refer to yourself in the third person!
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
You're allowed to know about it. You just can't 'publish' anything to do with it, or the fact it exists. I think.
The rules AIUI, and IANAE on this is that those who are subject to the injunction are not only banned from reporting anything about its substance but also banned from disclosing that they are so injuncted. My understanding is that all reputable news sources are made aware that such an order has been given and are accordingly similarly banned from reporting or disclosing the existence of the injunction. Discussion of the existence of the injunction that is published on a website like this might well amount to a breach of the order. Hence @PBModerator's request.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
You're allowed to know about it. You just can't 'publish' anything to do with it, or the fact it exists. I think.
The rules AIUI, and IANAE on this is that those who are subject to the injunction are not only banned from reporting anything about its substance but also banned from disclosing that they are so injuncted. My understanding is that all reputable news sources are made aware that such an order has been given and are accordingly similarly banned from reporting or disclosing the existence of the injunction. Discussion of the existence of the injunction that is published on a website like this might well amount to a breach of the order. Hence @PBModerator's request.
Lol completely Kafkaesque. Why do judges go along with this shit ?
Well, because the Sun reporting that they have been the subject of an injunction in relation to some pop singer who was having allegedly having an affair with their nanny was deemed rather pointless and made the law look even more of an arse than normal.
Well I am saying nothing more about it here. Not that there is an ‘it’ in the first place, of course...
The curious will have to resort to Google, which may or may not throw up some hits, depending on what you type in
Another example of the government only pursuing headlines and having no interest in the policy announced. Last year they launched the "Pick for Britain" campaign to recruit a domestic workforce to pick fruit and vegetables. Not a total success in terms of numbers but ticked all the boxes - a patriotic name, jobs for us not foreigners, support Brexit.
The scheme has been scrapped. Which means that farms will go back to importing literal coachloads of eastern Europeans to do the harvest.
Why does it matter? A significant driver for Brexit in eastern England is the "invasion" of people from eastern Europe to work in the food and agriculture sector. These are jobs that British people do not want to do. So the government make a lot of noise about removing migrants in favour of patriotic jobs for plucky locals, and once the headlines are gained and the policy weaved into knowledge, it gets withdrawn.
Which means that despite the policy of continuing migration of labour, the government will get the credit for ending it. Its smart politics, but I can't see how the lie holds beyond the immediate - the foreigner workforce will still be here.
You're having a shocker this week, Rochdale. This is more BS.
Pick for Britain - a campaign to provide jobs for people not working through COVID. Hasn't worked well - partly because East Euro workers were back in from about May 2020. Fine. Let it go. COVID is nearly over.
The seasonal workers scheme has been under development for 2-3 years, and continues.
Seasonal workers where needed have never been a problem for Brexiteers afaik. Certainly not for me.
Indeed! Which is why Lincolnshire so heavily voted for leave. Because they have no problem with all the foreigners taking over places like Boston and Wisbech.
Maybe Brexit wasn't about seasonal workers on farms? Or just about immigration at all? 🤔
Any discussion of immigration tends to end up discussing net migration being in the hundreds of thousands. Seasonal workers who come and leave then come and leave the next year etc have 0 impact on net migration over the long term.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
It is not. As a rule these things can't be published. The moderator doesn't know whether one exists or not, but it is better to errr on the side of caution.
Very grand to refer to yourself in the third person!
‘The moderator’ presumably refers to any one of several people.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
In 2016 there were not unambiguous commitments in the manifestos for a new referendum. There is today. That's a clear material change of circumstances.
No, the Greens were pro independence in 2016 as well as 2021, page 11 of their 2016 manifesto said 'If there is another vote on independence for Scotland we will push for Scotland to be independent.'
The current UK Tory government was elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the 2014 referendum as a once in a generation vote in 2019 and will deliver that and refuse a legal indyref2
The 2016 Greens wanted to build support for independence and would campaign for it if there was a referendum but they had no unambiguous commitments to one in the last Holyrood term. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36025012
They do now. Change
The Greens in 2016 were pro independence and did not rule out another vote in the 2016-2021 parliament.
No SNP majority as in 2011, we Tories will easily refuse indyref2, we would refuse it anyway even with an SNP majority to deliver our 2019 manifesto commitment that 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but no SNP majority just makes it easy to do so
Did not rule out a referendum and explicitly commit to a referendum are two completely different things.
2016 the Greens had no commitment to it. They do now. If Greens & SNP get a majority that's a majority elected on a commitment to a referendum.
That's democracy.
No, there was a pro independence majority in 2016 pre Brexit for the SNP and Greens, no SNP majority as in 2011 before the 2014 referendum post Brexit but still an SNP and Green majority would be zero change from Brexit.
So when we Tories refuse a legal indyref2 as we will the Nationalists will not be able to argue Brexit has produced a material change of circumstances anyway
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
It is not. As a rule these things can't be published. The moderator doesn't know whether one exists or not, but it is better to errr on the side of caution.
Very grand to refer to yourself in the third person!
Another example of the government only pursuing headlines and having no interest in the policy announced. Last year they launched the "Pick for Britain" campaign to recruit a domestic workforce to pick fruit and vegetables. Not a total success in terms of numbers but ticked all the boxes - a patriotic name, jobs for us not foreigners, support Brexit.
The scheme has been scrapped. Which means that farms will go back to importing literal coachloads of eastern Europeans to do the harvest.
Why does it matter? A significant driver for Brexit in eastern England is the "invasion" of people from eastern Europe to work in the food and agriculture sector. These are jobs that British people do not want to do. So the government make a lot of noise about removing migrants in favour of patriotic jobs for plucky locals, and once the headlines are gained and the policy weaved into knowledge, it gets withdrawn.
Which means that despite the policy of continuing migration of labour, the government will get the credit for ending it. Its smart politics, but I can't see how the lie holds beyond the immediate - the foreigner workforce will still be here.
You're having a shocker this week, Rochdale. This is more BS.
Pick for Britain - a campaign to provide jobs for people not working through COVID. Hasn't worked well - partly because East Euro workers were back in from about May 2020. Fine. Let it go. COVID is nearly over.
The seasonal workers scheme has been under development for 2-3 years, and continues.
Seasonal workers where needed have never been a problem for Brexiteers afaik. Certainly not for me.
Indeed! Which is why Lincolnshire so heavily voted for leave. Because they have no problem with all the foreigners taking over places like Boston and Wisbech.
Maybe Brexit wasn't about seasonal workers on farms? Or just about immigration at all? 🤔
Any discussion of immigration tends to end up discussing net migration being in the hundreds of thousands. Seasonal workers who come and leave then come and leave the next year etc have 0 impact on net migration over the long term.
Ever worked down there and spoken to the locals?
I've got friends from there but they're my generation from university so probably not representative.
But that's the point isn't it? Not everyone is the same.
I recall in 2016 in my local the conversation about the referendum was rather muted and one dimensional if one particular person was in as he would get irate and angry with anyone who hinted at anything other than Leave - but if he wasn't in then the discussion could be much more rounded.
Not every loudmouth represents everybody else.
From memory you were from there and you voted Leave right - was your vote to stop seasonal workers from coming and then leaving again? Or did you have other motivations?
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
In 2016 there were not unambiguous commitments in the manifestos for a new referendum. There is today. That's a clear material change of circumstances.
No, the Greens were pro independence in 2016 as well as 2021, page 11 of their 2016 manifesto said 'If there is another vote on independence for Scotland we will push for Scotland to be independent.'
The current UK Tory government was elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the 2014 referendum as a once in a generation vote in 2019 and will deliver that and refuse a legal indyref2
The 2016 Greens wanted to build support for independence and would campaign for it if there was a referendum but they had no unambiguous commitments to one in the last Holyrood term. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36025012
They do now. Change
The Greens in 2016 were pro independence and did not rule out another vote in the 2016-2021 parliament.
No SNP majority as in 2011, we Tories will easily refuse indyref2, we would refuse it anyway even with an SNP majority to deliver our 2019 manifesto commitment that 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but no SNP majority just makes it easy to do so
Did not rule out a referendum and explicitly commit to a referendum are two completely different things.
2016 the Greens had no commitment to it. They do now. If Greens & SNP get a majority that's a majority elected on a commitment to a referendum.
That's democracy.
No, there was a pro independence majority in 2016 pre Brexit for the SNP and Greens, no SNP majority as in 2011 before the 2014 referendum post Brexit but still an SNP and Green majority would be zero change from Brexit.
So when we Tories refuse a legal indyref2 as we will the Nationalists will not be able to argue Brexit has produced a material change of circumstances anyway
There was no pro-independence referendum majority in 2016 since the Greens were not elected on a commitment of another referendum. Heck even the SNP weren't clear and unambiguous that there should be another referendum then.
There is a clear commitment today from both parties to have a referendum in the next Parliament, a commitment that wasn't there last time.
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
But entitlements are accrued according to past NI payments.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
There was an SNP and Green majority in 2016 even before Brexit, so no SNP majority as in 2011, clearly no material change of circumstances due to Brexit, hence no indyref2 mandate and the UK government will easily refuse one
In 2016 there were not unambiguous commitments in the manifestos for a new referendum. There is today. That's a clear material change of circumstances.
No, the Greens were pro independence in 2016 as well as 2021, page 11 of their 2016 manifesto said 'If there is another vote on independence for Scotland we will push for Scotland to be independent.'
The current UK Tory government was elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the 2014 referendum as a once in a generation vote in 2019 and will deliver that and refuse a legal indyref2
The 2016 Greens wanted to build support for independence and would campaign for it if there was a referendum but they had no unambiguous commitments to one in the last Holyrood term. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36025012
They do now. Change
The Greens in 2016 were pro independence and did not rule out another vote in the 2016-2021 parliament.
No SNP majority as in 2011, we Tories will easily refuse indyref2, we would refuse it anyway even with an SNP majority to deliver our 2019 manifesto commitment that 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but no SNP majority just makes it easy to do so
Did not rule out a referendum and explicitly commit to a referendum are two completely different things.
2016 the Greens had no commitment to it. They do now. If Greens & SNP get a majority that's a majority elected on a commitment to a referendum.
That's democracy.
No, there was a pro independence majority in 2016 pre Brexit for the SNP and Greens, no SNP majority as in 2011 before the 2014 referendum post Brexit but still an SNP and Green majority would be zero change from Brexit.
So when we Tories refuse a legal indyref2 as we will the Nationalists will not be able to argue Brexit has produced a material change of circumstances anyway
There was no pro-independence referendum majority in 2016 since the Greens were not elected on a commitment of another referendum. Heck even the SNP weren't clear and unambiguous that there should be another referendum then.
There is a clear commitment today from both parties to have a referendum in the next Parliament, a commitment that wasn't there last time.
Clear and material change of circumstances.
The Greens were a pro independence party in 2016 prepared to campaign for Yes in a referendum in 2016-21 as their manifesto made clear.
No SNP majority in 2021 as in 2011 means no material change of circumstances and no legal indyref2 will be allowed by this Tory government.
The views of non Tory swing voters such as yourself who voted for Blair are not relevant on what we Tories will do when we refuse indyref2
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has revealed that production at two of its UK manufacturing plants is to be suspended due to a shortage of parts.
The company said operations at the Castle Bromwich (Birmingham) and Halewood (Liverpool) sites would be affected through a "limited period" of non-production from next Monday.
It blamed a COVID-19 crisis issue of semi-conductor shortages, widely flagged by the industry as a whole and blamed for disruption to schedules among rivals and at other firms which rely on computer chips.
JLR's UK plants, including this one in Solihull, employ 40,000 people. The shortage of computer chips is not affecting output at Solihull
JLR - which has the UK's largest car manufacturing operation - said it was unclear how long the stoppages would last but it insisted production at the Solihull plant would continue as normal.
Its statement said: "Like other automotive manufacturers, we are currently experiencing some COVID-19 supply chain disruption, including the global availability of semi-conductors, which is having an impact on our production schedules and our ability to meet global demand for some of our vehicles.
"As a result, we have adjusted production schedules for certain vehicles which means that our Castle Bromwich and Halewood manufacturing plants will be operating a limited period of non-production from Monday 26th April.
I have a few friends who work at Nissan Sunderland that report they're struggling with the same issues.
I still can't buy a graphics card for my PC either. Serious lack of capacity in semiconductor manufacturing.
Yes there is, as we discussed a few days ago ... BTW re advanced node manufacturing, I heard yesterday that it takes ASML 18 months from order to build an EUV machine because of the lead time to get key specialist components from suppliers (lenses, mirrors, etc) + another year to commission and ramp up on site. So that's 2.5 years from fab announcement to initial production of 5nm processes.
This doesn't really affect automotive semis, which will be back to normal in 2H21 but for AI chips, GPUs, DRAM and NAND, MPUs, SoC, etc ...
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has revealed that production at two of its UK manufacturing plants is to be suspended due to a shortage of parts.
The company said operations at the Castle Bromwich (Birmingham) and Halewood (Liverpool) sites would be affected through a "limited period" of non-production from next Monday.
It blamed a COVID-19 crisis issue of semi-conductor shortages, widely flagged by the industry as a whole and blamed for disruption to schedules among rivals and at other firms which rely on computer chips.
JLR's UK plants, including this one in Solihull, employ 40,000 people. The shortage of computer chips is not affecting output at Solihull
JLR - which has the UK's largest car manufacturing operation - said it was unclear how long the stoppages would last but it insisted production at the Solihull plant would continue as normal.
Its statement said: "Like other automotive manufacturers, we are currently experiencing some COVID-19 supply chain disruption, including the global availability of semi-conductors, which is having an impact on our production schedules and our ability to meet global demand for some of our vehicles.
"As a result, we have adjusted production schedules for certain vehicles which means that our Castle Bromwich and Halewood manufacturing plants will be operating a limited period of non-production from Monday 26th April.
Jaguar's otherwise mystifying decision to stop platform sharing with LR must mean Tata are preparing to split the brands and sell off Jaguar.
It's hard to see where Jaguar go from here. Their traditional niche (badly made large saloons for golf club bores) has gone and they are trying to pivot to an electric only brand without the economies of scale that the major OEMs have.
Me. I'm waiting to buy an affordable Jaguar electric.
I love my XE.
I was told the other day, and I don't know how true it is that if an electric car breaks down its virtually impossible to move as they auto brake . No idea if its true but be v careful before you buy....
Absolute toss. You can put them in Neutral/Tow Mode with an external 12v supply. Or 48v supply if you need to disengage both clutches on a Taycan/ e-tron.
SNP under 50% on both the Yougov and Comres Holyrood constituency polls today then, so if Unionists all vote tactically for the party closest to the SNP in each constituency in 2016, not only should they hold all the Unionist constituency seats, they could even gain a handful from the SNP
In 2016 the SNP got 46.5% of the constituency and 41.7% of the list so this would be a small swing in their favour in the constituency vote and a small swing against on the list. Since they didn't get many list seats that is unlikely to reduce the number of seats that they win, indeed it may increase it slightly. A lot depends on the efficiency of the Unionist vote and I am not confident that Douglas Ross is as vote transfer friendly as Ruth was. This is going to be tight.
Except the Greens are standing on a second referendum commitment too aren't they?
So it won't be that tight.
SNP + Greens + Alba = 51% on the list and 50% on the constituency. I'd call that pretty tight.
In 2016 the polls overstated the SNP constituency vote by a fair margin .
I see Douglas Ross is reviving Cameron's "Hug a Hoodie" campaign.
Alba are cruising for a bruising.
Yesterday they were claiming that Scottish Pensioners could claim UK pensions as UK expats......
Why not they paid for it, amount of money I have given the crooks over the years I would expect them to transfer a suitable amount of cash to pay for my state pension
Pensions are paid out of current revenues.
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
It matters not a jot how they pay it, I have a contract with UK government , I paid them shedloads of cash for a state pension product and regardless they cannot just wish it away. They will have to either pay it or negotiate a settlement with Scotland that Scotland accepts the liability for UK 's debt
With all the comments of "Keir Starmer is crap", "Labour is doomed", they seem to be making quiet progress in Scotland and Wales, places they need to do well in to make up lost ground in the Red Wall.
Yes, it's starting from a low-base, but that's a fair point.
Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has revealed that production at two of its UK manufacturing plants is to be suspended due to a shortage of parts.
The company said operations at the Castle Bromwich (Birmingham) and Halewood (Liverpool) sites would be affected through a "limited period" of non-production from next Monday.
It blamed a COVID-19 crisis issue of semi-conductor shortages, widely flagged by the industry as a whole and blamed for disruption to schedules among rivals and at other firms which rely on computer chips.
JLR's UK plants, including this one in Solihull, employ 40,000 people. The shortage of computer chips is not affecting output at Solihull
JLR - which has the UK's largest car manufacturing operation - said it was unclear how long the stoppages would last but it insisted production at the Solihull plant would continue as normal.
Its statement said: "Like other automotive manufacturers, we are currently experiencing some COVID-19 supply chain disruption, including the global availability of semi-conductors, which is having an impact on our production schedules and our ability to meet global demand for some of our vehicles.
"As a result, we have adjusted production schedules for certain vehicles which means that our Castle Bromwich and Halewood manufacturing plants will be operating a limited period of non-production from Monday 26th April.
Jaguar's otherwise mystifying decision to stop platform sharing with LR must mean Tata are preparing to split the brands and sell off Jaguar.
It's hard to see where Jaguar go from here. Their traditional niche (badly made large saloons for golf club bores) has gone and they are trying to pivot to an electric only brand without the economies of scale that the major OEMs have.
Me. I'm waiting to buy an affordable Jaguar electric.
I love my XE.
You're going to have a long wait. Jaguar have cancelled their mid size MLA project and are going to exit the C and D segments to try to go upmarket.
It's amazing that they have the absolute perfect brand for an electric sports car with enormous cultural heft (E-TYPE) yet they have no plans to do anything with it.
I can't see why they simply wouldn't up-rev the I-PACE.
The issue for me on that is the infrastructure and the price.
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction?
First I’ve heard of it.
Yes it's the first I've heard of it too.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
It is not. As a rule these things can't be published. The moderator doesn't know whether one exists or not, but it is better to errr on the side of caution.
" France plans to lift travel restrictions and ease a nationwide curfew on May 2 on expectations that daily Covid-19 cases will soon begin falling,"
What the f&&& are the French doing?
They're on 32,000 cases a day! If they're confident it'll all be OK in two weeks why not wait and see first????!!
That is as mad... as a box of frogs....
The french data has plateaued a bit. But lifting restrictions when cases are that high and not dropping fast....
They are doing the same as the Belgians - lifting lockdown earlier than is justified by the data. Fench R is still above one.
The Grim Reaper beckons...
OTOH, if the data are to be believed, lockdown or lack of it appears to have had zero effect on deaths, which seem to have been remarkably steady since January. Maybe they've decided it just isn't worth the bother.
I don't think the data shows that.
We have observed different impact on cases depending on lockdown detail and variant.
My theory of the strange French non-reduction of cases over months is that there is a stratum of society not complying.
Comments
Which seems weird. Who's voting for a unionist on the constituency and nationalist on the list?
https://twitter.com/ItsAndyRyan/status/1384857667601108994
That would be a swing of 1.75% from the SNP to the SCons since 2016 and could see the Conservatives gain Perthshire South and Kinrosshire from the SNP on UNS (especially as there was an 8% LD vote there in 2016 for the Conservatives to squeeze)
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1385138364224000002?s=20
Are there any allowable reputable sources on the alleged superinjunction, that we can read but not discuss?
First I’ve heard of it.
ON A GENERAL POINT
How do they work, if noone is allowed to know they exist. In order for them to be in existence, someone must know they exist; but if you don't know they exist you can't be in breach.
I bet the new system still predicts barbecue summers every single April.
The leaders of all the other Holyrood parties have agreed to take part in Thursday’s show, which will feature questions from a virtual audience.
However the First Minister will not appear, and the SNP have put up their depute leader Keith Brown instead.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19247889.nicola-sturgeon-fire-bbc-question-time-snub/
The Savanta ComRes survey for The Scotsman predicted that the party will return 63 MSPs in total – two short of a majority – the same number as in 2016.
However there would still be a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, with the Scottish Greens forecast to return eight MSPs, two more than 2016, and the party predicted to secure 7% of the list vote in 2021.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19250690.snp-miss-majority-holyrood-election-support-scottish-independence-dips-latest-polls-show/
https://greens.scot/our-future/independence-and-scotland-s-future
Etc etc.
I’ll stop discussing the thing that can’t be discussed.
Mike’s site, Mike’s rules. And presumably Mike is potentially, legally on the hook.
I get it
"The UK State Pension is unfunded, which means that its obligations are not underpinned by an actual fund or funds. Such schemes are often referred to as “Pay As You Go” (PAYG). The pension payments made by the government for unfunded pensions are financed on an ongoing basis from National Insurance contributions and general taxation."
https://greens.scot/sites/default/files/Campaigns/Holyrood 2016/Scottish Green Party easy read manifesto v2 web.pdf
The current UK Tory government was elected on a manifesto commitment to respect the 2014 referendum as a once in a generation vote in 2019 and will deliver that and refuse a legal indyref2
If there were a superinjunction about a politician I always assumed it would last about five minutes before a rival politician said something in Parliament.
They do now. Change
No SNP majority as in 2011, we Tories will easily refuse indyref2, we would refuse it anyway even with an SNP majority to deliver our winning 2019 manifesto commitment that 2014 was a once in a generation referendum but no SNP majority just makes it easy to do so
Any discussion of immigration tends to end up discussing net migration being in the hundreds of thousands. Seasonal workers who come and leave then come and leave the next year etc have 0 impact on net migration over the long term.
2016 the Greens had no commitment to it. They do now. If Greens & SNP get a majority that's a majority elected on a commitment to a referendum.
That's democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law
FWIW, I don’t think they ought to exist, but given that they do, the law has to be observed - particularly when posting on someone else’s blog.
The administration also tells Brazil and Australia to do more to cut their emissions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56837927
The curious will have to resort to Google, which may or may not throw up some hits, depending on what you type in
So when we Tories refuse a legal indyref2 as we will the Nationalists will not be able to argue Brexit has produced a material change of circumstances anyway
Ze should know.
But that's the point isn't it? Not everyone is the same.
I recall in 2016 in my local the conversation about the referendum was rather muted and one dimensional if one particular person was in as he would get irate and angry with anyone who hinted at anything other than Leave - but if he wasn't in then the discussion could be much more rounded.
Not every loudmouth represents everybody else.
From memory you were from there and you voted Leave right - was your vote to stop seasonal workers from coming and then leaving again? Or did you have other motivations?
Those will be taxes raised (and then some) in an independent Scotland.
There isn't a safety deposit box somewhere with bundles of notes marked "Malc's pension"!
There is a clear commitment today from both parties to have a referendum in the next Parliament, a commitment that wasn't there last time.
Clear and material change of circumstances.
NEW THREAD
No SNP majority in 2021 as in 2011 means no material change of circumstances and no legal indyref2 will be allowed by this Tory government.
The views of non Tory swing voters such as yourself who voted for Blair are not relevant on what we Tories will do when we refuse indyref2
This doesn't really affect automotive semis, which will be back to normal in 2H21 but for AI chips, GPUs, DRAM and NAND, MPUs, SoC, etc ...
I guess the question is what the ceiling is.
The issue for me on that is the infrastructure and the price.
We have observed different impact on cases depending on lockdown detail and variant.
My theory of the strange French non-reduction of cases over months is that there is a stratum of society not complying.