Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
It would nonetheless be something of a humiliation for Swinney, the worst SNP performance in a Holyrood election since 2007.
With a projected Unionist majority he couldn't even push the independence card still, the SNP would be judged solely on its domestic policy record in Scotland
It's to Starmer's advantage that the Mandelson/vetting saga is terribly complex; even this esteemed board is struggling to separate fact from fiction, so I suspect the general public is flummoxed. Regardless, the overall impression of deceit will add to Starmer's unpopularity - but this is already so high that there's not much further to go.
My view is that he'll ride this out, but may well choose to go before the GE. But when he does go, he'll have a clear view of who he wants his successor to be, and will make plans to get his way. So, if he thinks Burnham is Labour's best chance at the GE, he can make this happen. If he doesn't, he'll try to pave the way for his chosen successor. Darren Jones, maybe? I'm pretty confident that he won't want Rayner succeeding him.
The complexity of the process argument is why I've said the opposition should focus on the decision to appoint Mandelson itself. I think that's where the real scandal is, that Starmer was part of a web of mutual obligation that involved Mandelson, and the rich guy he accepted freebies from, and so he made a decision on who to appoint as US ambassador for reasons of a personal relationship, rather than what was in the best interests of Britain.
Agree with most, but not all, of that. I think at the time Starmer thought, wrongly, that Mandelson's appointment was in the best interests of Britain. But in September he sacked him, and in January he held his hands up and admitted he'd made a bad mistake. So, it was a gross misjudgement to appoint Mandelson. I'm not sure what else Starmer can say on it.
That is what stuffs him. Others, including Robbins, were sacked for much less clearly wrong decisions. And it is clear that the PM was warned by relevant people (journalists don't count here) not to do it.
BTW on a slightly related point, I still have not noticed any explanation as to why MMcS's communications with PeterM on the stolen phone can't be fully recovered from PeterM's own devices. It seems to me highly likely they will shed light on the PM's current farrago. So I am sure he, and of course PeterM himself, will want them to come to light.
Since UK unemployment was already low in 2016, at 4.9%, and actually fell significantly after the referendum, to 3.8% in 2019, though it has since risen back to around its original level, it does not seem plausible that a significant amount of the extra employment would come from reducing unemployment.
The loss of trade access to the EU didn't happen until 2020, so the timing of these changes to unemployment is consistent with a loss of employment due to businesses laying off staff after they lose business selling to the EU.
I think there's at least a decent case that this ~1pp increase in the unemployment rate is attributable to Brexit. It doesn't account for all of the extra employment the report said there would be, but I think there's an effect there.
I also think that, if the economy had done better, particularly in terms of productivity, then this would have supported higher wages, and so you'd expect this to increase the incentives for people to participate in the labour market, and thereby increase employment that way.
It's an optimistic scenario, but I think it means that a Brexit hit of somewhere between 0 and 8% is plausible.
The point of the article(s) is that 8% isn't plausible - its wildly overblown. But its such a good number that remainers/rejoiners will use it from now till the heat death of the Universe.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
I do a bit of importing and exporting at work, both EU and ROW. It's a bit of a pain, but the idea it's some sort of huge barrier to trade is a complete nonsense. It's mostly some standard paperwork, which really isn't difficult once you've done it a couple of times.
The government's NI changes alone have cost me a multiple of the Brexit trade compliance costs.
It's to Starmer's advantage that the Mandelson/vetting saga is terribly complex; even this esteemed board is struggling to separate fact from fiction, so I suspect the general public is flummoxed. Regardless, the overall impression of deceit will add to Starmer's unpopularity - but this is already so high that there's not much further to go.
My view is that he'll ride this out, but may well choose to go before the GE. But when he does go, he'll have a clear view of who he wants his successor to be, and will make plans to get his way. So, if he thinks Burnham is Labour's best chance at the GE, he can make this happen. If he doesn't, he'll try to pave the way for his chosen successor. Darren Jones, maybe? I'm pretty confident that he won't want Rayner succeeding him.
The complexity of the process argument is why I've said the opposition should focus on the decision to appoint Mandelson itself. I think that's where the real scandal is, that Starmer was part of a web of mutual obligation that involved Mandelson, and the rich guy he accepted freebies from, and so he made a decision on who to appoint as US ambassador for reasons of a personal relationship, rather than what was in the best interests of Britain.
Agree with most, but not all, of that. I think at the time Starmer thought, wrongly, that Mandelson's appointment was in the best interests of Britain. But in September he sacked him, and in January he held his hands up and admitted he'd made a bad mistake. So, it was a gross misjudgement to appoint Mandelson. I'm not sure what else Starmer can say on it.
That is what stuffs him. Others, including Robbins, were sacked for much less clearly wrong decisions. And it is clear that the PM was warned by relevant people (journalists don't count here) not to do it.
BTW on a slightly related point, I still have not noticed any explanation as to why MMcS's communications with PeterM on the stolen phone can't be fully recovered from PeterM's own devices. It seems to me highly likely they will shed light on the PM's current farrago. So I am sure he, and of course PeterM himself, will want them to come to light.
The obvious answer is that Mandy can’t be compelled to hand over his phone absent a court order (McSweeney’s phone was owned by his employer), and he likely made sure it had an unfortunate accident involving a shredder shortly after he was relieved of his position in the US.
Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering
Rightly so. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Won't stop Remainers/Rejoiners trotting it out, unquestioned mind.
Side of a bus, MM.
As we discussed in some detail under Fishing's last (very good) header, debunking a study doesn't disprove the negative effects of Brexit; it just debunks the study. Can you present any study demonstrating the opposite ?
Putting up barriers to trade and investment will reduce wealth relative to not doing so. The question is how much, which is a difficult number to determine, but it doesn't mean the models are invalid.
The relative loss of wealth will impact employment but probably even harder to put a number on it given the concurrent sharp increase in immigration.
Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.
But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?
Perhaps.
If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
Starmer is a weasel, employing weasally language to evade reponsibility for Mandelson's appointment.
Beware weasels. If Labour hasn't got anybody better to put forward as PM than a weasel, it should fold up its tent and depart.
I've been wondering this morning how Starmer is any different to Boris.
Boris was obviously chaotic - it was his personality - but where is the evidence that Starmer isn't just as chaotic, but with the chaos hidden behind a grey screen? He certainly doesn't seem to have a better relationship with the truth.
Johnson lied as easily as he breathed. He lied about completely trivial things.
To compare the two is completely insane.
But Johnson certainly legitimised a lot of what has come since.
I'd argue Blair started the process (and that was driven in part by Alistair Campbell and our good old friend Peter Mandelson). See Peter Oborne's "The Rise of Political Lying". The case is made that politicians have always tried to hide the truth, or evade, not answer (see Paxman vs Howard) but under Blair straight out lies came into it.
Personally I think Starmer is more of a through back to previous times. Unlike Johnson he doesn't tell obvious lies, but he tries his lawyerly wiles to cover half-truths and deception.
For those that don't remember - Damian Green (shadow minister) was arrested for possessing leaked documents. Not state secrets, but the spin plan for lying to the press.
The technique being used was to tell the press some misleading info. When the press came back (having found out the info was rubbish), give them different misleading info. repeat until the story dies.
Damian Green was giving the press the plan. So instead of being slow walked through the steps, the journalists were asking questions that the spinners hadn't got an answer for.
It's to Starmer's advantage that the Mandelson/vetting saga is terribly complex; even this esteemed board is struggling to separate fact from fiction, so I suspect the general public is flummoxed. Regardless, the overall impression of deceit will add to Starmer's unpopularity - but this is already so high that there's not much further to go.
My view is that he'll ride this out, but may well choose to go before the GE. But when he does go, he'll have a clear view of who he wants his successor to be, and will make plans to get his way. So, if he thinks Burnham is Labour's best chance at the GE, he can make this happen. If he doesn't, he'll try to pave the way for his chosen successor. Darren Jones, maybe? I'm pretty confident that he won't want Rayner succeeding him.
I still think there’s a non-zero chance he does a deal with Burnham and anoints him successor in exchange for not running against him until he quits. Burnham becomes an MP and can run for leader in 2028.
Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering
Other papers are available. The question here is whether the damage from Brexit was 2%, 8% or something in between. Even the most optimistic studies don’t claim there wasn’t (and isn’t) any damage to the economy.
That's not true at all. When I looked last year I found a dozen or so such without much difficulty.
See e.g. Minford and Zhu (2024) or Maurice's various publications for thr IEA.
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
Interesting question, but this has got legal and legalistic. The question needs to be asked and analysed about exact and specific words and occasions in the HoC, where in general formulaic expressions were used. There is a lot of Hansard to trawl
This one from 4th Feb is interesting:
Badenoch: ‘Did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?’ Starmer: ‘Yes, it did’
As I said last week, words and language matter. In this case there’s no clear basis to say Keir Starmer lied. Security vetting is designed to be comprehensive, so it would be expected to cover all relevant associations - including those involving Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein.
That means Starmer could accurately answer “Yes, it did” to whether Epstein was mentioned in the vetting, without needing detailed knowledge of the full contents of that process or having been directly involved in it.
The issue I have with those demanding Starmer’s resignation over the Mandelson affair is the performative outrage that comes with it. In the lead-up to the 2024 general election, many argued that Labour lacked experience, depth, and political savvy, and needed figures like Powell or Mandelson from the Blair–Brown years. When Starmer appoints someone like Mandelson, he’s praised for it as a “smart move” - but the moment things go wrong, those same voices turn on him. The reality is that much of Mandelson’s record was already well known. You either accept that he’s a controversial operator - skilled but morally questionable - and that it’s better to have him on your side, or you don’t.
Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.
But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?
Perhaps.
If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
Starmer is a weasel, employing weasally language to evade reponsibility for Mandelson's appointment.
Beware weasels. If Labour hasn't got anybody better to put forward as PM than a weasel, it should fold up its tent and depart.
I've been wondering this morning how Starmer is any different to Boris.
Boris was obviously chaotic - it was his personality - but where is the evidence that Starmer isn't just as chaotic, but with the chaos hidden behind a grey screen? He certainly doesn't seem to have a better relationship with the truth.
Johnson lied as easily as he breathed. He lied about completely trivial things.
To compare the two is completely insane.
But Johnson certainly legitimised a lot of what has come since.
I'd argue Blair started the process (and that was driven in part by Alistair Campbell and our good old friend Peter Mandelson). See Peter Oborne's "The Rise of Political Lying". The case is made that politicians have always tried to hide the truth, or evade, not answer (see Paxman vs Howard) but under Blair straight out lies came into it.
Personally I think Starmer is more of a through back to previous times. Unlike Johnson he doesn't tell obvious lies, but he tries his lawyerly wiles to cover half-truths and deception.
For those that don't remember - Damian Green (shadow minister) was arrested for possessing leaked documents. Not state secrets, but the spin plan for lying to the press.
The technique being used was to tell the press some misleading info. When the press came back (having found out the info was rubbish), give them different misleading info. repeat until the story dies.
Damian Green was giving the press the plan. So instead of being slow walked through the steps, the journalists were asking questions that the spinners hadn't got an answer for.
And to add, in case anyone thought that having government leaked documents was a bad thing, check out Gordon Broon's grin on BBC Breakfast Time (no idea of a link to this though).
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This very interesting score-settling interview with former 🇪🇺Council chair Charles Michel contains one notable detail on 🇺🇦.
Michel seems to confirm that the choreographed moves toward accession are disingenuous, saying that national leaders privately told him "it will never happen".
It's the highest-level admission of something Brussels reporters know well: behind the scenes, there is significant scepticism about the real prospects of Ukraine joining the union that people are afraid to express publicly.
That scepticism (also coming from federalists concerned it would make ever-closer-union impossible and shift the EU's geographic centre east to Warsaw) is myriad and coming from a variety of different perspectives.
But with Orban gone, it's going to become clear that other leaders were hiding behind his veto.
Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.
But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?
Perhaps.
If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
Starmer is a weasel, employing weasally language to evade reponsibility for Mandelson's appointment.
Beware weasels. If Labour hasn't got anybody better to put forward as PM than a weasel, it should fold up its tent and depart.
I've been wondering this morning how Starmer is any different to Boris.
Boris was obviously chaotic - it was his personality - but where is the evidence that Starmer isn't just as chaotic, but with the chaos hidden behind a grey screen? He certainly doesn't seem to have a better relationship with the truth.
Johnson lied as easily as he breathed. He lied about completely trivial things.
To compare the two is completely insane.
But Johnson certainly legitimised a lot of what has come since.
I'd argue Blair started the process (and that was driven in part by Alistair Campbell and our good old friend Peter Mandelson). See Peter Oborne's "The Rise of Political Lying". The case is made that politicians have always tried to hide the truth, or evade, not answer (see Paxman vs Howard) but under Blair straight out lies came into it.
Personally I think Starmer is more of a through back to previous times. Unlike Johnson he doesn't tell obvious lies, but he tries his lawyerly wiles to cover half-truths and deception.
There were straight out lies before Blair! Profumo? Eden saying we had not colluded with Israel over Suez? Thatcher and Westland? The Marconi scandal? Lord Palmerston's comments on the Opium Wars?
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'
Nature abhors a vacuum so someone will step up.
After all, there was a time when no one was deemed capable of replacing Thatcher or Blair or even Cameron, let alone Johnson. Starmer would be the first Labour PM to be forced out - we can probably argue Wilson and Blair more or less went on their terms and it was certainly more voluntary than the public defenestrations of Thatcher, May, Johnson and Truss to name but four.
The other side of is who would want to be Prime Minister? I suspect there are no shortage of applicants - after all, 360 people are trying to be Newham Councillors which is a world removed.
Trying to perpetuate the sense of "crisis" is what news organisations like Sky (who have to regurgitate this nonsense every hour) and those not well disposed to the current incumbent PM or party of Government will attempt for the next 48-72 hours but absent a "smoking gun", it's hard to see how Starmer doesn't survive unless he chooses to step down and politicians rarely walk away from power - real or imagined.
The only other option would be some form of mutiny within Cabinet what is what usually does for failed Conservative Prime Ministers but untiland unless we see a significant resignation, it all looks reasonable for Starmer.
My feeling is that nothing will happen in public - though plenty off the record and anonymous and in huddles - within Labour (unless the PM decides for himself) until after 7th May, at which point Labour may believe they can drain all the swamp and shift all the blame at the same time to Starmer.
Three years to next election. That's a long time to keep Starmer on as PM, and a long time for a new face to have a go.
A glance at William Hills tells me that punters think Reform probably won't get most seats (6/4) and probably won't get a majority (11/4). The punter's view is getting insufficient attention. I think most non punters think that 'Reform most seats' is a racing certainty. I think the punters are right.
As I’ve said the public don’t care about the technical stuff.
They either think appointing Mandelson was right or wrong. They decided that weeks ago.
Badenoch is playing this wrong. She should be going after the choice to appoint Mandelson in the first place.
The reason Hodges and co aren’t is because they supported it.
Thing is, quite a few people thought appointing a shit and a rogue to get on with a shit and rogue was a good plan. And in theory it was right until it turned out that he was a shit and a rogue AND was leaking official secrets. So its harder to make the case against appointing him unless you did that at the time based on him being a shit and a rogue.
I think it is reasonable to attack Starmer over the vetting. People would rightly expect that he had been fully cleared. Tens of thousands of people in the UK (maybe more) go through vetting. My wife did before she went to work for DSTL on chemical weapons decontamination. If she had failed it she would not have been employed.
Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.
But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?
Perhaps.
If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
Starmer is a weasel, employing weasally language to evade reponsibility for Mandelson's appointment.
Beware weasels. If Labour hasn't got anybody better to put forward as PM than a weasel, it should fold up its tent and depart.
I've been wondering this morning how Starmer is any different to Boris.
Boris was obviously chaotic - it was his personality - but where is the evidence that Starmer isn't just as chaotic, but with the chaos hidden behind a grey screen? He certainly doesn't seem to have a better relationship with the truth.
Johnson lied as easily as he breathed. He lied about completely trivial things.
To compare the two is completely insane.
But Johnson certainly legitimised a lot of what has come since.
I'd argue Blair started the process (and that was driven in part by Alistair Campbell and our good old friend Peter Mandelson). See Peter Oborne's "The Rise of Political Lying". The case is made that politicians have always tried to hide the truth, or evade, not answer (see Paxman vs Howard) but under Blair straight out lies came into it.
Personally I think Starmer is more of a through back to previous times. Unlike Johnson he doesn't tell obvious lies, but he tries his lawyerly wiles to cover half-truths and deception.
There were straight out lies before Blair! Profumo? Eden saying we had not colluded with Israel over Suez? Thatcher and Westland? The Marconi scandal? Lord Palmerston's comments on the Opium Wars?
No doubt that is true but Oborne's point is that the culture of deceit became embedded with Blair/Campbell/Mandelson.
This very interesting score-settling interview with former 🇪🇺Council chair Charles Michel contains one notable detail on 🇺🇦.
Michel seems to confirm that the choreographed moves toward accession are disingenuous, saying that national leaders privately told him "it will never happen".
It's the highest-level admission of something Brussels reporters know well: behind the scenes, there is significant scepticism about the real prospects of Ukraine joining the union that people are afraid to express publicly.
That scepticism (also coming from federalists concerned it would make ever-closer-union impossible and shift the EU's geographic centre east to Warsaw) is myriad and coming from a variety of different perspectives.
But with Orban gone, it's going to become clear that other leaders were hiding behind his veto.
Comical Dave is back !!! Yay !!!
(I'm in less disagreement with him than I was several years ago - I was a Brexit supporter who has had my perception changed by experience, and that view reinforced by post-2022 UK and international politics. Probably it's time to take another look, to see how his views have changed over time.)
Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'
Nature abhors a vacuum so someone will step up.
After all, there was a time when no one was deemed capable of replacing Thatcher or Blair or even Cameron, let alone Johnson. Starmer would be the first Labour PM to be forced out - we can probably argue Wilson and Blair more or less went on their terms and it was certainly more voluntary than the public defenestrations of Thatcher, May, Johnson and Truss to name but four.
The other side of is who would want to be Prime Minister? I suspect there are no shortage of applicants - after all, 360 people are trying to be Newham Councillors which is a world removed.
Trying to perpetuate the sense of "crisis" is what news organisations like Sky (who have to regurgitate this nonsense every hour) and those not well disposed to the current incumbent PM or party of Government will attempt for the next 48-72 hours but absent a "smoking gun", it's hard to see how Starmer doesn't survive unless he chooses to step down and politicians rarely walk away from power - real or imagined.
The only other option would be some form of mutiny within Cabinet what is what usually does for failed Conservative Prime Ministers but untiland unless we see a significant resignation, it all looks reasonable for Starmer.
My feeling is that nothing will happen in public - though plenty off the record and anonymous and in huddles - within Labour (unless the PM decides for himself) until after 7th May, at which point Labour may believe they can drain all the swamp and shift all the blame at the same time to Starmer.
Three years to next election. That's a long time to keep Starmer on as PM, and a long time for a new face to have a go.
A glance at William Hills tells me that punters think Reform probably won't get most seats (6/4) and probably won't get a majority (11/4). The punter's view is getting insufficient attention. I think most non punters think that 'Reform most seats' is a racing certainty. I think the punters are right.
Yes, and a little straw in the wind was my very intelligent and informed neighbour who assumed Farage was likely to become leader of a Reform government at the next GE.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
Ireland shows it can be done. A McBrexit benefit so to speak.
It's to Starmer's advantage that the Mandelson/vetting saga is terribly complex; even this esteemed board is struggling to separate fact from fiction, so I suspect the general public is flummoxed. Regardless, the overall impression of deceit will add to Starmer's unpopularity - but this is already so high that there's not much further to go.
My view is that he'll ride this out, but may well choose to go before the GE. But when he does go, he'll have a clear view of who he wants his successor to be, and will make plans to get his way. So, if he thinks Burnham is Labour's best chance at the GE, he can make this happen. If he doesn't, he'll try to pave the way for his chosen successor. Darren Jones, maybe? I'm pretty confident that he won't want Rayner succeeding him.
I still think there’s a non-zero chance he does a deal with Burnham and anoints him successor in exchange for not running against him until he quits. Burnham becomes an MP and can run for leader in 2028.
Underpants gnomes.
Three stages
Burnham deal with Starmer Becomes MP Runs for leader in 2028.
It's that second stage that is so tricky. The UK public have form for not doing what they are told by governments when it comes to voting.
On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week. For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.
Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.
But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.
1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.
2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.
*Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.
Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
Despite how we look, out genetic make-up as a whole is pretty similar. The issues with cancers is that while for some types, classic chemotherapy can be curative (e.g. I was cured from APL, a sub-type of leukeamia with a two intercalators, testicular cancers are uniquely suceptible to platinum drugs), others will find resistance pathways (think those Borg energy shields adapting in Star Trek.
The latest research is usually focussed on specific mutations within a cancer cell line. KRAS mutations affect signalling in tumours - shutting it down will stop the pro-cancer signalling.
And finding ways to get the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells is probably the best treatment of all. Its hard to do as cancer cells derive from your own cells, but if you can do it...
It's a laborious process creating individualised vaccines, but still likely cost effective for an otherwise fatal disease if it's sufficiently effective.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
Ireland shows it can be done. A McBrexit benefit so to speak.
I accept that but it took them at least 60 years to make good the damage.
This very interesting score-settling interview with former 🇪🇺Council chair Charles Michel contains one notable detail on 🇺🇦.
Michel seems to confirm that the choreographed moves toward accession are disingenuous, saying that national leaders privately told him "it will never happen".
It's the highest-level admission of something Brussels reporters know well: behind the scenes, there is significant scepticism about the real prospects of Ukraine joining the union that people are afraid to express publicly.
That scepticism (also coming from federalists concerned it would make ever-closer-union impossible and shift the EU's geographic centre east to Warsaw) is myriad and coming from a variety of different perspectives.
But with Orban gone, it's going to become clear that other leaders were hiding behind his veto.
Comical Dave is back !!! Yay !!!
(I'm in less disagreement with him than I was several years ago - I was a Brexit supporter who has had my perception changed by experience, and that view reinforced by post-2022 UK and international politics. Probably it's time to take another look, to see how his views have changed over time.)
Comical Dave has recently published a book calling for Europe to rid itself of the US.
Even if Mandy had never been appointed, Starmer would still be a poor PM and in need of replacement well ahead of the next GE.
But with the calls for his departure now coming (mainly) from the benches opposite rather than those behind, will there be a bit of rallying to the flag, and therefore making Starmer's position more secure after the May shellacking than would otherwise have been the case?
Perhaps.
If there is genuinely no better alternative then replacing Starmer doesn't make sense.
Starmer is a weasel, employing weasally language to evade reponsibility for Mandelson's appointment.
Beware weasels. If Labour hasn't got anybody better to put forward as PM than a weasel, it should fold up its tent and depart.
I've been wondering this morning how Starmer is any different to Boris.
Boris was obviously chaotic - it was his personality - but where is the evidence that Starmer isn't just as chaotic, but with the chaos hidden behind a grey screen? He certainly doesn't seem to have a better relationship with the truth.
Johnson lied as easily as he breathed. He lied about completely trivial things.
To compare the two is completely insane.
But Johnson certainly legitimised a lot of what has come since.
I'd argue Blair started the process (and that was driven in part by Alistair Campbell and our good old friend Peter Mandelson). See Peter Oborne's "The Rise of Political Lying". The case is made that politicians have always tried to hide the truth, or evade, not answer (see Paxman vs Howard) but under Blair straight out lies came into it.
Personally I think Starmer is more of a through back to previous times. Unlike Johnson he doesn't tell obvious lies, but he tries his lawyerly wiles to cover half-truths and deception.
For those that don't remember - Damian Green (shadow minister) was arrested for possessing leaked documents. Not state secrets, but the spin plan for lying to the press.
The technique being used was to tell the press some misleading info. When the press came back (having found out the info was rubbish), give them different misleading info. repeat until the story dies.
Damian Green was giving the press the plan. So instead of being slow walked through the steps, the journalists were asking questions that the spinners hadn't got an answer for.
And to add, in case anyone thought that having government leaked documents was a bad thing, check out Gordon Broon's grin on BBC Breakfast Time (no idea of a link to this though).
It has been alleged that the reason Brown finally backed down on the Green arrest was that a Conservative MP who was a Special Constable said he would arrest Brown, based on the video of Brown boasting about receiving and using Treasury leaks, pre-1997
On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week. For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.
Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.
But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.
1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.
2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.
*Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.
Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
Despite how we look, out genetic make-up as a whole is pretty similar. The issues with cancers is that while for some types, classic chemotherapy can be curative (e.g. I was cured from APL, a sub-type of leukeamia with a two intercalators, testicular cancers are uniquely suceptible to platinum drugs), others will find resistance pathways (think those Borg energy shields adapting in Star Trek.
The latest research is usually focussed on specific mutations within a cancer cell line. KRAS mutations affect signalling in tumours - shutting it down will stop the pro-cancer signalling.
And finding ways to get the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells is probably the best treatment of all. Its hard to do as cancer cells derive from your own cells, but if you can do it...
It's a laborious process creating individualised vaccines, but still likely cost effective for an otherwise fatal disease if it's sufficiently effective.
You can imagine a pathway to the future where sampling, profiling and generating the vaccine is a few days or weeks, and then bang, your done.
In Star Trek IV there is a scene with a patient in the hospital with an incurable cancer. Bones scans her, generates a pill and bingo she is cured.
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
Massive earthquake off Japan. Tsunami warning out. That'd be all we need
...Local media are now reporting that the first tsunami waves are reaching Iwate prefecture, with one wave as high as 40cm recorded in Miyako port. The Japan Meteorological Agency has forecast tsunami waves of up to 3m (10ft) reaching the Pacific coast of Hokkaido and Iwate prefectures...
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week. For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.
Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.
But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.
1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.
2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.
*Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.
Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
Despite how we look, out genetic make-up as a whole is pretty similar. The issues with cancers is that while for some types, classic chemotherapy can be curative (e.g. I was cured from APL, a sub-type of leukeamia with a two intercalators, testicular cancers are uniquely suceptible to platinum drugs), others will find resistance pathways (think those Borg energy shields adapting in Star Trek.
The latest research is usually focussed on specific mutations within a cancer cell line. KRAS mutations affect signalling in tumours - shutting it down will stop the pro-cancer signalling.
And finding ways to get the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells is probably the best treatment of all. Its hard to do as cancer cells derive from your own cells, but if you can do it...
It's a laborious process creating individualised vaccines, but still likely cost effective for an otherwise fatal disease if it's sufficiently effective.
You can imagine a pathway to the future where sampling, profiling and generating the vaccine is a few days or weeks, and then bang, your done.
In Star Trek IV there is a scene with a patient in the hospital with an incurable cancer. Bones scans her, generates a pill and bingo she is cured.
We may not be that far off that now.
Nope. The patient in that scene is on kidney dialysis rather than having cancer! #pbpedantry
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
Of course you totally ignore the fact that many of the questions could not have been answered because of protocols that Cummings and now Labour are eager to change.
The power of the Civil Service blob.
The fact is there is no smoking gun
No lies
No question that can't be answered by, the current rules prevented disclosure.
There is also the human fact.
Mandelson saved hundreds of thousands of key jobs and whole communities from devastation by getting best tariffs on the planet.
Frankly if anyone says that is less important than his links to Epstein then they need to give their head a fucking great wobble.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Which Keir Starmer will we get in the Commons today?
What I'm hearing is that it won't be the Starmer of February 5, when he used a press conference in Hastings to offer an unmitigated apology to victims and make a series of apologies
Instead we're going to get angry Starmer. The PM is furious that he wasn't told by Robbins and will make that very, very clear
On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week. For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.
Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.
But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.
1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.
2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.
*Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.
Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
Despite how we look, out genetic make-up as a whole is pretty similar. The issues with cancers is that while for some types, classic chemotherapy can be curative (e.g. I was cured from APL, a sub-type of leukeamia with a two intercalators, testicular cancers are uniquely suceptible to platinum drugs), others will find resistance pathways (think those Borg energy shields adapting in Star Trek.
The latest research is usually focussed on specific mutations within a cancer cell line. KRAS mutations affect signalling in tumours - shutting it down will stop the pro-cancer signalling.
And finding ways to get the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells is probably the best treatment of all. Its hard to do as cancer cells derive from your own cells, but if you can do it...
It's a laborious process creating individualised vaccines, but still likely cost effective for an otherwise fatal disease if it's sufficiently effective.
You can imagine a pathway to the future where sampling, profiling and generating the vaccine is a few days or weeks, and then bang, your done.
In Star Trek IV there is a scene with a patient in the hospital with an incurable cancer. Bones scans her, generates a pill and bingo she is cured.
We may not be that far off that now.
Nope. The patient in that scene is on kidney dialysis rather than having cancer! #pbpedantry
Thanks Fishing. That NBER paper is getting quite a hammering
Other papers are available. The question here is whether the damage from Brexit was 2%, 8% or something in between. Even the most optimistic studies don’t claim there wasn’t (and isn’t) any damage to the economy.
That's not true at all. When I looked last year I found a dozen or so such without much difficulty.
See e.g. Minford and Zhu (2024) or Maurice's various publications for the IEA.
Minford predicted large economic benefits from Brexit.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
Massive earthquake off Japan. Tsunami warning out. That'd be all we need
...Local media are now reporting that the first tsunami waves are reaching Iwate prefecture, with one wave as high as 40cm recorded in Miyako port. The Japan Meteorological Agency has forecast tsunami waves of up to 3m (10ft) reaching the Pacific coast of Hokkaido and Iwate prefectures...
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Didn't the integration involve two walls (paid for by the Picts)?
On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week. For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.
Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.
But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.
1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.
2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.
*Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.
Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
Despite how we look, out genetic make-up as a whole is pretty similar. The issues with cancers is that while for some types, classic chemotherapy can be curative (e.g. I was cured from APL, a sub-type of leukeamia with a two intercalators, testicular cancers are uniquely suceptible to platinum drugs), others will find resistance pathways (think those Borg energy shields adapting in Star Trek.
The latest research is usually focussed on specific mutations within a cancer cell line. KRAS mutations affect signalling in tumours - shutting it down will stop the pro-cancer signalling.
And finding ways to get the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells is probably the best treatment of all. Its hard to do as cancer cells derive from your own cells, but if you can do it...
It's a laborious process creating individualised vaccines, but still likely cost effective for an otherwise fatal disease if it's sufficiently effective.
You can imagine a pathway to the future where sampling, profiling and generating the vaccine is a few days or weeks, and then bang, your done.
In Star Trek IV there is a scene with a patient in the hospital with an incurable cancer. Bones scans her, generates a pill and bingo she is cured.
We may not be that far off that now.
Well the cost of sequencing has been falling faster than the cost of computing, and one very large benefit of mRNA vaccines is the speed and cost of production, so that's not implausible.
As an aside, Biontech is one of a handful of multi billion dollar European biotechs created in the last couple of decades. The UK has none, despite having the probably the best research in Europe during that period. I can't see Brexit improving that situation.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
The main reason people see Brexit as a mistake is because things are still shit. But a lot of that is covid and now the inflation paying for it, and the economic shit from the Ukraine war. The public is no more able to disentangle the complex web of economic performance than economics professors in academia.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
Ireland shows it can be done. A McBrexit benefit so to speak.
I accept that but it took them at least 60 years to make good the damage.
Some would argue 75 or 80. The population reached a minimum in 1961, so 40 years would be the lowest estimate. But net migration didn't become positive until 1996.
On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week. For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.
Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.
But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.
1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.
2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.
*Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.
Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
Despite how we look, out genetic make-up as a whole is pretty similar. The issues with cancers is that while for some types, classic chemotherapy can be curative (e.g. I was cured from APL, a sub-type of leukeamia with a two intercalators, testicular cancers are uniquely suceptible to platinum drugs), others will find resistance pathways (think those Borg energy shields adapting in Star Trek.
The latest research is usually focussed on specific mutations within a cancer cell line. KRAS mutations affect signalling in tumours - shutting it down will stop the pro-cancer signalling.
And finding ways to get the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells is probably the best treatment of all. Its hard to do as cancer cells derive from your own cells, but if you can do it...
It's a laborious process creating individualised vaccines, but still likely cost effective for an otherwise fatal disease if it's sufficiently effective.
You can imagine a pathway to the future where sampling, profiling and generating the vaccine is a few days or weeks, and then bang, your done.
In Star Trek IV there is a scene with a patient in the hospital with an incurable cancer. Bones scans her, generates a pill and bingo she is cured.
We may not be that far off that now.
Well the cost of sequencing has been falling faster than the cost of computing, and one very large benefit of mRNA vaccines is the speed and cost of production, so that's not implausible.
I genuinely think this is coming, and not that far off. Imagine if covid had hit in 1980, 1990, 200, 2010. We were 'lucky' that we had the ability to vaccinate as quickly as we did. And it was still a pretty terrible experience.
Counter-terror police probe if Iran paying 'thugs for hire' to carry out arson attacks in London Counter-terror officers investigating if Iranian proxies are behind attacks on Jewish community in the capital ... ... The Met said the incidents were “similar in nature” and said Iranian proxy group Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, have claimed responsibility for most of the attacks online. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-arson-attacks-jewish-community-iran-proxy-met-police-b1279263.html
Teenagers arrested over arson attack on synagogue ... Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyya, an Islamist militant group, said it was behind the attack.
It has claimed responsibility for five incidents targeting Jewish sites in London, including the firebombing of four ambulances in Golders Green in March and a botched drone attack on the Israeli embassy last week.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Didn't the integration involve two walls (paid for by the Picts)?
The Roman invasion created a border where little had existed before. Indeed, the Picts as a concept were a Roman invention for the tribes they hadn't conquered. However, more recent archaeological work shows that there was close economic integration between either side of the wall(s), not a hard border.
On a more positive note, there was a second piece of good news in pancreatic cancer this last week. For a subset of patients, there is potentially an almost miraculous treatment.
Pancreatic cancer has one of the most suppressive tumor microenvironments in oncology.
But two pancreatic cancer results dropped today. Both matter.
1. BioNTech mRNA neoantigen vaccine: nearly all responders still alive at 6 years*. 98% of induced T cells were de novo — the immune system learned to see a cancer it had always been blind to.
2. Daraxonrasib: 47% ORR, 92% disease control as first-line monotherapy. KRAS G12D, undruggable for 40 years, finally has a drug.
*Very small numbers from a PI trial (8 patients out of 16); a PII trial is still ongoing.
Those numbers look too small for any conclusion given the genetic variability of the population. How do these studies cope with this, and the recent additions to the variability in the genetic mix and any imported multi-generational genetic variabilities. Seems a bit flaying around in the dark in the hope of more grants.
Despite how we look, out genetic make-up as a whole is pretty similar. The issues with cancers is that while for some types, classic chemotherapy can be curative (e.g. I was cured from APL, a sub-type of leukeamia with a two intercalators, testicular cancers are uniquely suceptible to platinum drugs), others will find resistance pathways (think those Borg energy shields adapting in Star Trek.
The latest research is usually focussed on specific mutations within a cancer cell line. KRAS mutations affect signalling in tumours - shutting it down will stop the pro-cancer signalling.
And finding ways to get the immune system to identify and destroy cancer cells is probably the best treatment of all. Its hard to do as cancer cells derive from your own cells, but if you can do it...
It's a laborious process creating individualised vaccines, but still likely cost effective for an otherwise fatal disease if it's sufficiently effective.
You can imagine a pathway to the future where sampling, profiling and generating the vaccine is a few days or weeks, and then bang, your done.
In Star Trek IV there is a scene with a patient in the hospital with an incurable cancer. Bones scans her, generates a pill and bingo she is cured.
We may not be that far off that now.
So much technology has been anticipated by Star Trek.
Which Keir Starmer will we get in the Commons today?
What I'm hearing is that it won't be the Starmer of February 5, when he used a press conference in Hastings to offer an unmitigated apology to victims and make a series of apologies
Instead we're going to get angry Starmer. The PM is furious that he wasn't told by Robbins and will make that very, very clear
That would be a mistake
He needs to set out his case and genuinely accept his errors - they call it contrition
Blaming everyone else and angry it did not cross his desk misjudges the mood of the commons and wider public
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
More so for Scotland. The economic effect will be bigger for Scotland leaving the UK than the UK leaving the EU, but the separation will result in Scotland being a genuinely independent country whereas the UK always was an independent country.
Which is why Brexit has failed in my view. Its proponents have not convinced the public of any real benefits to offset the real costs, and don't even bother to try.
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
This comment is massively misleading about lawyers. There are Trollope novels - Orley Farm for example - where the impression is given that lawyers (solicitors and barristers, especially Chaffenbrass) walk into court without having troubled their client about giving their account of what happened.
None of this is even slightly true about the disciplines, rules and practices of criminal lawyers. Whether or not the client's account of the facts amounts to a criminal offence (guilt) is central to their concerns.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
Which Keir Starmer will we get in the Commons today?
What I'm hearing is that it won't be the Starmer of February 5, when he used a press conference in Hastings to offer an unmitigated apology to victims and make a series of apologies
Instead we're going to get angry Starmer. The PM is furious that he wasn't told by Robbins and will make that very, very clear
Performative angry Starmer is one of the worst types of Starmer.
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
Of course you totally ignore the fact that many of the questions could not have been answered because of protocols that Cummings and now Labour are eager to change.
The power of the Civil Service blob.
The fact is there is no smoking gun
No lies
No question that can't be answered by, the current rules prevented disclosure.
There is also the human fact.
Mandelson saved hundreds of thousands of key jobs and whole communities from devastation by getting best tariffs on the planet.
Frankly if anyone says that is less important than his links to Epstein then they need to give their head a fucking great wobble.
I posted this earlier today and you are in denial trying to excuse Mandelson's ill fated, ill judged, and idiotic appointment:
Good morning
The irony in all this is Dame Karen Pierce was a highly respected UK Ambassador to the US, and had she continued, not only would our relationship have prospered without the malign appointment of Mandelson known for his connection with Epstein but also his connections now revealed with Russia and China but Starmer would have avoided his inevitable legacy of Mandelson
Anybody trying to excuse Starmer's appointment which he made before the vetting process had completed is not going to win that argument and the only question is when will Starmer finally have to resign
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
More so for Scotland. The economic effect will be bigger for Scotland leaving the UK than the UK leaving the UK, but the separation will result in Scotland being a genuinely independent country whereas the UK always was an independent country.
Which is why Brexit has failed in my view. Its proponents have not convinced the public of any real benefits to offset the real costs, and don't even bother to try.
In that case, if you believe Brexit has not been a major success and we now have a UK government trying to build a closer relationship with the EU again then one could argue that Brexit has benefited the Scottish Unionist side more than than the pro independence one
Have to wonder if at some point cabinet ministers are no longer prepared to torch whats left of their credibility dancing on this iffy pinhead. Douglas Alexander looked an utter berk on GMB, and looked like he knew it was all utterly indefensible. Liz Kendall, much as i dislike her, was better yesterday because shes good at making everything she says seem incredibly, almost pantomimely, earnest.
He has always been like that , bathes in snakeoil every morning. Would claim black was white to stay on the greasy pole.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Scotland and England fought a war with each other every century from the 11th to 18th centuries and the 1707 Act of Union (if you also count the wars against the Jacobites until 1746).
The fact that 30 years since the USSR broke up, Russia and Ukraine are now at war is not encouraging either
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
All of these models on both sides of the argument have the same flaws. They assume that a particular effect will occur for good or ill without giving any real consideration as to what the response to that effect might be and then allow the model to produce a result.
What we have now, that we did not have at the time of the referendum, is a fairly significant period of real results. Anyone not trying to make a partisan point should focus not on assumptions but on actual results over that period. This is extremely difficult and made much more so by the major intervening events such as Covid, Ukraine and now Iran. Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU? if there is, I have yet to see it. We have certainly not done spectacularly as some claimed we would. But we seem broadly in the middle of the pack. It seems to me that the pre-Brexit trends have continued. That is disappointing. But it is not some disaster.
Sky presenter has just said that if there is nobody else to replace Starmer it is a bit 'bleak'
It’s a bit bleak.
John Healey is probably the best of a bad bunch at the moment, Burnham would obviously have been a contender but he’s still stuck in Manchester.
I see no convincing evidence of Healey being up to the job. Or even his current one.
Healey is utter crap , heard him stuttering and stammering when Ferrari asked him how many ships we had in Navy. He had no clue whatsoever. Typical of these labour donkeys , not up to their brief , not fit to run a bath never mind a country.
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
This comment is massively misleading about lawyers. There are Trollope novels - Orley Farm for example - where the impression is given that lawyers (solicitors and barristers, especially Chaffenbrass) walk into court without having troubled their client about giving their account of what happened.
None of this is even slightly true about the disciplines, rules and practices of criminal lawyers. Whether or not the client's account of the facts amounts to a criminal offence (guilt) is central to their concerns.
(Note, for example, defendants didn't swear an oath, since it was assumed they would perjure themselves; nor were they allowed to compelling witnesses for the defence.)
Have to wonder if at some point cabinet ministers are no longer prepared to torch whats left of their credibility dancing on this iffy pinhead. Douglas Alexander looked an utter berk on GMB, and looked like he knew it was all utterly indefensible. Liz Kendall, much as i dislike her, was better yesterday because shes good at making everything she says seem incredibly, almost pantomimely, earnest.
He has always been like that , bathes in snakeoil every morning. Would claim black was white to stay on the greasy pole.
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Reform are polling second in Scotland and Wales on average, whereas in London they are polling third behind the Greens as well as Labour. Indeed in a few polls Reform are even polling 4th in London behind the Tories as well
Counter-terror police probe if Iran paying 'thugs for hire' to carry out arson attacks in London Counter-terror officers investigating if Iranian proxies are behind attacks on Jewish community in the capital ... ... The Met said the incidents were “similar in nature” and said Iranian proxy group Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia, the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right, have claimed responsibility for most of the attacks online. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-arson-attacks-jewish-community-iran-proxy-met-police-b1279263.html
Teenagers arrested over arson attack on synagogue ... Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyya, an Islamist militant group, said it was behind the attack.
It has claimed responsibility for five incidents targeting Jewish sites in London, including the firebombing of four ambulances in Golders Green in March and a botched drone attack on the Israeli embassy last week.
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Same. A lot of noise but little action. We've already seen what happens when constituents are given an option of Reform or Anyone Else...
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
More so for Scotland. The economic effect will be bigger for Scotland leaving the UK than the UK leaving the UK, but the separation will result in Scotland being a genuinely independent country whereas the UK always was an independent country.
Which is why Brexit has failed in my view. Its proponents have not convinced the public of any real benefits to offset the real costs, and don't even bother to try.
In that case, if you believe Brexit has not been a major success and we now have a UK government trying to build a closer relationship with the EU again then one could argue that Brexit has benefited the Scottish Unionist side more than than the pro independence one
Brexit forces Scots who like both unions to choose one or the other, possibly preferring the EU. It also works the other way - people who like neither union might opt for the UK to avoid the EU. There are more people in the first group than the second, so the net effect of Brexit is to boost independence. I have seen analysis on this - it is a small but significant effect given an even split on the independence question.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
In theory there’s nothing stopping England and Scotland having a very close relationship after Scotland has control over the normal stuff that all independent countries have, however I accept the vast torrent of British/English minatory petulance after the 2014 unpleasantness wasn’t encouraging.
Which Keir Starmer will we get in the Commons today?
What I'm hearing is that it won't be the Starmer of February 5, when he used a press conference in Hastings to offer an unmitigated apology to victims and make a series of apologies
Instead we're going to get angry Starmer. The PM is furious that he wasn't told by Robbins and will make that very, very clear
I got started quite early today, and I’m ten miles in before noon. I think I might manage the twenty five miles I hoped for today
I’m heading for Saint Étienne de Montluc, or somewhere near. Then I can get to Nantes early enough tomorrow to explore the city and get my clothes washed
I had hoped to get to Nantes on day three, and then spend two nights there. This isn’t much different, and makes up for my slow start
The distance itself doesn’t matter much to me. I’d just really like to have all of my holiday walks joined together by the end of this one, so I want to get to Biarritz
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
So the UK is an economic union in the same way as the EU is one. Given there hasn't been an economic breakout by the UK or any of the EU countries there is no (economic) incentive to change the status quo. And until that time, the Union is safe.
I mentioned the exemplar of Ireland which exists in two camps. But there are plenty of examples of countries going their own way without wishing to rejoin e.g. Czechoslovakia, or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or Poland and Lithuania. The only country that seems to want to get the old band back again is Russia and that's not going too well.
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Reform are polling second in Scotland and Wales on average, whereas in London they are polling third behind the Greens as well as Labour. Indeed in a few polls Reform are even polling 4th in London behind the Tories as well
Polling is one thing, actual votes is the real thing and I expect Reform to underperform
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Reform are polling second in Scotland and Wales on average, whereas in London they are polling third behind the Greens as well as Labour. Indeed in a few polls Reform are even polling 4th in London behind the Tories as well
Polling is one thing, actual votes is the real thing and I expect Reform to underperform
They outperformed expectations with their polling rising in 2025 so its not an unreasonable theory to think they might underperform in 2026 with their polling in reverse. At least we will get yo see if tge polling us leadimg the voting or vice versa and a Reform bliw out boosts them up again
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Same. A lot of noise but little action. We've already seen what happens when constituents are given an option of Reform or Anyone Else...
+1 thankfully Wales and Scotland have other protest votes options that should reveal that Reform is just a none of the above party for voters who feel they’ve been hard done by (regardless of whether it’s perceived or real).
I got started quite early today, and I’m ten miles in before noon. I think I might manage the twenty five miles I hoped for today
I’m heading for Saint Étienne de Montluc, or somewhere near. Then I can get to Nantes early enough tomorrow to explore the city and get my clothes washed
I had hoped to get to Nantes on day three, and then spend two nights there. This isn’t much different, and makes up for my slow start
The distance itself doesn’t matter much to me. I’d just really like to have all of my holiday walks joined together by the end of this one, so I want to get to Biarritz
Where are you crossing the Gironde? Royan or further down at Blaye. Suppose it depends on which side of the Gironde has better vineyards.
Shouldn’t Robbins have made No 10 aware of the issues when Starmer stood up in the commons saying Mandelson had cleared security checks ?
This is the point I made repeatedly yesterday. This was not some arcane and remote issue for the PM, it was something he was fielding questions on every week (or at least every week he chose to turn up) where he was having to be very careful about what he said in the context of an ongoing police investigation. I simply do not find it credible that someone with the background and experience of the PM would not have been all over this and only found out that Mandelson failed the DV last week. His whole defence was, as usual, all the correct procedures were followed. Did he really put that forward without knowing?
This is so obvious and for an experienced lawyer an utter failure of his due dilligence
But lawyers also know how not to ask question when it's best they don't know something. Like not asking their client whether they are guilty, for example...
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
This comment is massively misleading about lawyers. There are Trollope novels - Orley Farm for example - where the impression is given that lawyers (solicitors and barristers, especially Chaffenbrass) walk into court without having troubled their client about giving their account of what happened.
None of this is even slightly true about the disciplines, rules and practices of criminal lawyers. Whether or not the client's account of the facts amounts to a criminal offence (guilt) is central to their concerns.
(Note, for example, defendants didn't swear an oath, since it was assumed they would perjure themselves; nor were they allowed to compelling witnesses for the defence.)
I agree about the past. The history of criminal law, procedure and evidence is fascinating. Trollope probably wasn't completely fantasising in his accounts, and his social account of the distinction between standard issue Trollopian gentlemen lawyers and a low breed of dirty lawyers who did criminal defence work is not all imagination.
And it is well within living memory when the defendant could still give an unsworn statement from the dock, when jury retirements took minutes not hours and days, when big trials took a few days not weeks or months, summings up could be savage, sentencing fairly random, the death penalty was given for murder without discretion, no alibi warning was required, police wrote up massively long interviews after the event in the canteen and trials were all about verbals, similar fact evidence was rare as was hearsay and anonymous evidence, juries were male property owners. Lots more.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Before Edward I this was arguable. Literally so, Scottish kings did at times assert their independence from English suzerainty and at others acknowledge a feudal obligation. After Edward I, the Vladimir Putin of the Middle Ages, and until some time after 1707, Scotland and England were the opposite of close. Not that anyone suggests we should go back to that situation.
At what time is Starmer performing today? And at what time does the other shoe drop tomorrow? That will be even more interesting, Starmer's future could be in Robbins' hands.
53% of UK voters want to rejoin the EU a new Yougov poll finds, with 84% of LD, 83% of Labour, 82% of Green, 39% of Conservative and 18% of Reform voters backing rejoin.
The highest support though is for a closer relationship with the EU without rejoining the single market and customs union either. 61% of voters back that, including 70% of Tory and 55% of Reform voters
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Before the Union Scotland was shut out of a lot of trade with England. Access to English markets was one of the main reasons for Scotland signing up.
So the UK is an economic union in the same way as the EU is one. Given there hasn't been an economic breakout by the UK or any of the EU countries there is no (economic) incentive to change the status quo. And until that time, the Union is safe.
I mentioned the exemplar of Ireland which exists in two camps. But there are plenty of examples of countries going their own way without wishing to rejoin e.g. Czechoslovakia, or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or Poland and Lithuania. The only country that seems to want to get the old band back again is Russia and that's not going too well.
There's an argument that democratic countries work better with a population of around 5 million or so - such as Denmark and Ireland. Large enough to have some benefit of scale, but small enough that the population feels closer to decision-making. Even better if the country is part of a larger economic union, so that its companies can benefit from a much larger regional market.
By this argument you wouldn't expect Brexit to have created the same benefits as Scottish independence, because Britain's population is still too large. I'm not sure if I'm completely convinced by this argument, but I think it's a point in favour of as much devolution as possible to English regions of about the size of Yorkshire.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
More so for Scotland. The economic effect will be bigger for Scotland leaving the UK than the UK leaving the UK, but the separation will result in Scotland being a genuinely independent country whereas the UK always was an independent country.
Which is why Brexit has failed in my view. Its proponents have not convinced the public of any real benefits to offset the real costs, and don't even bother to try.
In that case, if you believe Brexit has not been a major success and we now have a UK government trying to build a closer relationship with the EU again then one could argue that Brexit has benefited the Scottish Unionist side more than than the pro independence one
Brexit forces Scots who like both unions to choose one or the other, possibly preferring the EU. It also works the other way - people who like neither union might opt for the UK to avoid the EU. There are more people in the first group than the second, so the net effect of Brexit is to boost independence. I have seen analysis on this - it is a small but significant effect given an even split on the independence question.
Is it though? Most polls on Scottish independence are little different to where they were in 2015 say, the year before Brexit and the year after the indyref in 2014
Fieldwork is over a long period however - late Jan and early Feb to last week
Has the SNP losing 8 seats on 2021 and even with the Greens only on 64 seats combined, 1 short of a Holyrood majority. Reform would be the main opposition party in Scotland with 22 MSPs so Swinney would be forced to do a deal with Sarwar and third placed Labour on 17 seats or the fifth placed LDs on 14 MSPs to stay First Minister and get legislation through
In Wales, Plaid would be largest party in the Senedd on 30 seats but well short of the 49 seats needed for a majority. Given Reform is also projected to be the main opposition in Wales with 28 seats, Plaid would need the support of third placed Labour with 24 forecast seats in the 96 seat Senedd for a majority and to get legislation through
It's an extraordinary poll - though with the sample period being quite long I would be surprised if that's the end result.
We now have a 3 way tussle: Indy parties (SNP, Green) where the Greens are only running in a handful of seats Unionist parties (Lab, Con, LD) running everywhere and splitting the vote Fuker parties (Reform, Scottish Family) where everyone hates them regardless of where they stand on Indy
If the fuck the fukers momentum continues to build I think we'll see more trad unionists pick up more list votes. How you govern? If this MRP was the result then Swinney remains First Minister and basically challenges the others to vote him down, knowing they can't coalesce into an opposing block. Reform would be official opposition until natural attrition (resignation by scandal) reduces their number low enough.
What happens to the economy? Services? Infrastructure. Nothing. It gets worse - which suits the SNP as they will continue to blame the English for the mess.
I may be wrong but I expect Reform to underperform both in Scotland and Wales
Reform are polling second in Scotland and Wales on average, whereas in London they are polling third behind the Greens as well as Labour. Indeed in a few polls Reform are even polling 4th in London behind the Tories as well
Polling is one thing, actual votes is the real thing and I expect Reform to underperform
Reform will underperfom in London, in the rest of the UK, even in Wales and maybe Scotland, Reform will likely be at least second
I got started quite early today, and I’m ten miles in before noon. I think I might manage the twenty five miles I hoped for today
I’m heading for Saint Étienne de Montluc, or somewhere near. Then I can get to Nantes early enough tomorrow to explore the city and get my clothes washed
I had hoped to get to Nantes on day three, and then spend two nights there. This isn’t much different, and makes up for my slow start
The distance itself doesn’t matter much to me. I’d just really like to have all of my holiday walks joined together by the end of this one, so I want to get to Biarritz
Where are you crossing the Gironde? Royan or further down at Blaye. Suppose it depends on which side of the Gironde has better vineyards.
Royan was my original, vague plan. I’ll have to see where my feet take me..
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
You're saying that because you want the Leave predictions to have been proven wrong.
But if you look at the 'official' predictions then the Remain side:
By comparison the Leave side predictions were inevitably more vacuous with only semi-official promises of spending more on the NHS and controlling EU migration. Both of which have happened.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Scotland and England fought a war with each other every century from the 11th to 18th centuries and the 1707 Act of Union (if you also count the wars against the Jacobites until 1746).
The fact that 30 years since the USSR broke up, Russia and Ukraine are now at war is not encouraging either
Bits of England fought wars with other bits of England every century too, didn't they? Harrying of the North, 11th C. The Anarchy, 12th C. The Barons' Wars, 13th C. The Peasant Revolt, 14th C. The Wars of the Roses, 15th C. Various rebellions against the Tudors in the 16th C. The Civil War, 17th C. The 1745 Rising in the 18th C.
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
More so for Scotland. The economic effect will be bigger for Scotland leaving the UK than the UK leaving the UK, but the separation will result in Scotland being a genuinely independent country whereas the UK always was an independent country.
Which is why Brexit has failed in my view. Its proponents have not convinced the public of any real benefits to offset the real costs, and don't even bother to try.
In that case, if you believe Brexit has not been a major success and we now have a UK government trying to build a closer relationship with the EU again then one could argue that Brexit has benefited the Scottish Unionist side more than than the pro independence one
Brexit forces Scots who like both unions to choose one or the other, possibly preferring the EU. It also works the other way - people who like neither union might opt for the UK to avoid the EU. There are more people in the first group than the second, so the net effect of Brexit is to boost independence. I have seen analysis on this - it is a small but significant effect given an even split on the independence question.
I was briefly in the prefer the EU to British Union set, but it didn't take long for the practicalities of Brexit to become apparent, and the obvious parallel for disentangling Scotland from the Union with England.
Is there not a group of voters who would have been willing to go for Scottish independence within the EU, but not outside it?
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
When we were in, too little was made of our own decisions and responsibility, and too much of the EU. The same applies now we're out, as if the EU's magic and we aren't responsible for our own political decisions and consequences.
Exactly. It is a tale we are used to in Scotland where anything good (there must be something) is to the credit of the Scottish government and everything bad (endless) is the fault of Westminster. It is immature and irresponsible and it is downright depressing that even out of the EU our politicians still play the same games.
I am constantly struck by just how similar UK/Brexit/Eu is to Scotland/Independence/UK. All the issues that the UK had leaving (and the rationale beforehand) are mirrored in Scotland.
But much more so because Scotland is far more integrated into the UK economy than the UK ever was in the EU.
That's a good point. Single market since the Romans?
I would say at least since 1707.
Economic integration goes back earlier than Scotland was Scotland. Megalithic culture spread from Scotland to England with no distinction. The Picts were (probably) Brythonic Celts, very closely related to those to the south. Strathclyde was definitely Brythonic and there was the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Normans were heavily integrated in Scotland by David I's reign.
Sure, but the Union of the Parliaments was driven by the Darien disaster which had destroyed Scottish capital and the urgent need to have unrestricted access to English markets both south of the border and abroad.
Sure, 1707 is extremely important, but I was pushing againt a myth in Scottish nationalism that Scotland was very independent from England before then, a glorious past that can be re-gained, when Scotland and England have always had a very close relationship (from before there was a Scotland or an England).
Scotland and England fought a war with each other every century from the 11th to 18th centuries and the 1707 Act of Union (if you also count the wars against the Jacobites until 1746).
The fact that 30 years since the USSR broke up, Russia and Ukraine are now at war is not encouraging either
Bits of England fought wars with other bits of England every century too, didn't they? Harrying of the North, 11th C. The Anarchy, 12th C. The Barons' Wars, 13th C. The Peasant Revolt, 14th C. The Wars of the Roses, 15th C. Various rebellions against the Tudors in the 16th C. The Civil War, 17th C. The 1745 Rising in the 18th C.
No, those were more wars between nobles over the Crown and power, a class war over the poll tax, and a war between Parliament and the King. Not wars between nations or beyond arguably the Wars of the Roses, even between English counties and regions.
The 1745 Rising was more a War between a Protestant Hanoverian King and a Roman Catholic Jacobite deposed King's grandson
It's good to see the absurd assumptions underlying this much quoted report taken apart so precisely.
The argument that we have lost GDP, employment or investment simply because we have left the EU is frankly implausible. If we have under performed (and we have although no more than most of the EU and less than Germany) it is because our leadership have made poor choices, have failed to address the significant weaknesses in our economy that had developed whilst in the EU and have run a sub-optimal macroeconomic policy. These are our choices and those we have elected of both stripes have made them.
This government came to power committed to growth. This was necessary because they had ambitions on public spending, particularly benefits and health, that could only be paid for by that growth. But the wish is not the deed. Almost nothing they have done since coming to power is habile to promote growth and much of what they have done has been negative. To take an obvious example @Fishing notes that unemployment has crept back up again. Is this Brexit or is it the consequences of increasing the cost of Employers NI, the NMW and squeezing marginal businesses with ever higher taxes? I know what my money is on.
How is it implausible?
This kind of thinking ignores the experience of thousands of UK businesses. There were genuine, tangible trade barriers put up as a result of Brexit.
Our politicians could (would) have made poor choices whether we were in or out of the EU, most of which remained in our government’s hands. You could argue that we haven’t made the most of Brexit opportunities. But the only Brexit we can judge is the one we have.
This is from the House of Commons library
"The UK’s recent trade performance in services has been much better than that for goods. UK goods exports to the EU fell sharply in January 2021 after the end of the Brexit transition period, before recovering strongly in February 2021. Goods exports to the EU remain below their pre-pandemic/Brexit level, however: in 2024, goods exports to the EU were 18% below their 2019 level in real terms. It is important to point out, however, that goods exports to the EU were growing slowly before Brexit and the pandemic. In addition, exports to non-EU countries in 2024 were also 14% below their 2019 level in real terms.
Services have performed better UK exports of services to both EU and non-EU countries fell in 2020 but have grown strongly since then. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were 19% above their 2019 level in real terms. Exports to non-EU countries were 23% above their 2019 level." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7851/
In short the pre-Brexit trends have continued. Making things in this country at a profit is very difficult. Service industries do much better. We need to look at the policy mix that makes manufacturing here so hard. Do we need to increase the incentive to invest and train? Do we need to focus our education systems more clearly on producing what industry actually wants? Do we need to improve infrastructure to make the moving of goods easier?
Simply saying "Brexit" as if it is an answer fails to acknowledge the problems, problems that existed as members and still exist.
You’re making the same error as you’ve criticised others for making. Without a counterfactual to compare against this doesn’t mean anything. I can as easily assert that trade would have been much better without it.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
I didn't make that error. I did not claim that Brexit improved trade. I simply observe that there are long term trends in our trade which involve importing ever more manufactured goods and exporting ever more services which existed long before Brexit and have continued since. Although there was an initial shock when the transitional periods came to an end this was brief and the numbers since are consistent with the pre-existing trends. The fantasies that we were suddenly going to become a manufacturing paradise with exciting new markets outwith the EU protectionism have proven to be just that. That is not my case and it never was.
Predictions are hard, particularly of the future. Most predictions made by either side in the debate have been proven wrong, but I think we can say that the predictions of Brexiteers have been proved more wrong than those of Remainers. An extensive debunking of one NBER paper seems to be rather missing that point.
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
All of these models on both sides of the argument have the same flaws. They assume that a particular effect will occur for good or ill without giving any real consideration as to what the response to that effect might be and then allow the model to produce a result.
What we have now, that we did not have at the time of the referendum, is a fairly significant period of real results. Anyone not trying to make a partisan point should focus not on assumptions but on actual results over that period. This is extremely difficult and made much more so by the major intervening events such as Covid, Ukraine and now Iran. Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU? if there is, I have yet to see it. We have certainly not done spectacularly as some claimed we would. But we seem broadly in the middle of the pack. It seems to me that the pre-Brexit trends have continued. That is disappointing. But it is not some disaster.
You say we should focus "on actual results", but you also recognise that "This is extremely difficult"! Isn't that the point ultimately? Not only are predictions hard, but counter-factuals are hard too!
"Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU?" That's not necessarily the right comparison. One would expect both the UK and the remainder of the EU to have been hurt by Brexit.
Comments
With a projected Unionist majority he couldn't even push the independence card still, the SNP would be judged solely on its domestic policy record in Scotland
BTW on a slightly related point, I still have not noticed any explanation as to why MMcS's communications with PeterM on the stolen phone can't be fully recovered from PeterM's own devices. It seems to me highly likely they will shed light on the PM's current farrago. So I am sure he, and of course PeterM himself, will want them to come to light.
By what mechanism did Brexit improve trade? Where are the indicators showing that mechanism? Do they fully offset those new frictions we can see?
The government's NI changes alone have cost me a multiple of the Brexit trade compliance costs.
The relative loss of wealth will impact employment but probably even harder to put a number on it given the concurrent sharp increase in immigration.
The technique being used was to tell the press some misleading info. When the press came back (having found out the info was rubbish), give them different misleading info. repeat until the story dies.
Damian Green was giving the press the plan. So instead of being slow walked through the steps, the journalists were asking questions that the spinners hadn't got an answer for.
See e.g. Minford and Zhu (2024) or Maurice's various publications for thr IEA.
That means Starmer could accurately answer “Yes, it did” to whether Epstein was mentioned in the vetting, without needing detailed knowledge of the full contents of that process or having been directly involved in it.
The issue I have with those demanding Starmer’s resignation over the Mandelson affair is the performative outrage that comes with it. In the lead-up to the 2024 general election, many argued that Labour lacked experience, depth, and political savvy, and needed figures like Powell or Mandelson from the Blair–Brown years. When Starmer appoints someone like Mandelson, he’s praised for it as a “smart move” - but the moment things go wrong, those same voices turn on him. The reality is that much of Mandelson’s record was already well known. You either accept that he’s a controversial operator - skilled but morally questionable - and that it’s better to have him on your side, or you don’t.
They either think appointing Mandelson was right or wrong. They decided that weeks ago.
Badenoch is playing this wrong. She should be going after the choice to appoint Mandelson in the first place.
The reason Hodges and co aren’t is because they supported it.
This very interesting score-settling interview with former 🇪🇺Council chair Charles Michel contains one notable detail on 🇺🇦.
Michel seems to confirm that the choreographed moves toward accession are disingenuous, saying that national leaders privately told him "it will never happen".
It's the highest-level admission of something Brussels reporters know well: behind the scenes, there is significant scepticism about the real prospects of Ukraine joining the union that people are afraid to express publicly.
That scepticism (also coming from federalists concerned it would make ever-closer-union impossible and shift the EU's geographic centre east to Warsaw) is myriad and coming from a variety of different perspectives.
But with Orban gone, it's going to become clear that other leaders were hiding behind his veto.
Come for the argument that the damage isn't 8%. Leave with the belief that the damage is probably ~4%.
Who does that help?
Three years to next election. That's a long time to keep Starmer on as PM, and a long time for a new face to have a go.
A glance at William Hills tells me that punters think Reform probably won't get most seats (6/4) and probably won't get a majority (11/4). The punter's view is getting insufficient attention. I think most non punters think that 'Reform most seats' is a racing certainty. I think the punters are right.
I think it is reasonable to attack Starmer over the vetting. People would rightly expect that he had been fully cleared. Tens of thousands of people in the UK (maybe more) go through vetting. My wife did before she went to work for DSTL on chemical weapons decontamination. If she had failed it she would not have been employed.
(I'm in less disagreement with him than I was several years ago - I was a Brexit supporter who has had my perception changed by experience, and that view reinforced by post-2022 UK and international politics. Probably it's time to take another look, to see how his views have changed over time.)
I didn't like to take his money.
Including misinformation pretending to be Reform information wrt the 20mph limit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrll7d9jeyo
Three stages
Burnham deal with Starmer
Becomes MP
Runs for leader in 2028.
It's that second stage that is so tricky. The UK public have form for not doing what they are told by governments when it comes to voting.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/mrna-vaccine-treat-pancreatic-cancer
It's a laborious process creating individualised vaccines, but still likely cost effective for an otherwise fatal disease if it's sufficiently effective.
And do it in the Commons.
In Star Trek IV there is a scene with a patient in the hospital with an incurable cancer. Bones scans her, generates a pill and bingo she is cured.
We may not be that far off that now.
Maybe plausible deniability was the aim from the beginning...
The Japan Meteorological Agency has forecast tsunami waves of up to 3m (10ft) reaching the Pacific coast of Hokkaido and Iwate prefectures...
(BBC)
The power of the Civil Service blob.
The fact is there is no smoking gun
No lies
No question that can't be answered by, the current rules prevented disclosure.
There is also the human fact.
Mandelson saved hundreds of thousands of key jobs and whole communities from devastation by getting best tariffs on the planet.
Frankly if anyone says that is less important than his links to Epstein then they need to give their head a fucking great wobble.
Which Keir Starmer will we get in the Commons today?
What I'm hearing is that it won't be the Starmer of February 5, when he used a press conference in Hastings to offer an unmitigated apology to victims and make a series of apologies
Instead we're going to get angry Starmer. The PM is furious that he wasn't told by Robbins and will make that very, very clear
Brexiteers' promises have not been delivered and that's why the public clearly thinks (see the polling) that Brexit was a mistake.
As an aside, Biontech is one of a handful of multi billion dollar European biotechs created in the last couple of decades. The UK has none, despite having the probably the best research in Europe during that period.
I can't see Brexit improving that situation.
Its all still 'feels'.
...
Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyya, an Islamist militant group, said it was behind the attack.
It has claimed responsibility for five incidents targeting Jewish sites in London, including the firebombing of four ambulances in Golders Green in March and a botched drone attack on the Israeli embassy last week.
Counter-terror police believe the group could be linked to the Iranian regime and recruiting attackers with no allegiance to their cause online by offering “quick cash”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/20/teenagers-arrested-over-arson-attack-on-harrow-synagogue/ (£££)
He needs to set out his case and genuinely accept his errors - they call it contrition
Blaming everyone else and angry it did not cross his desk misjudges the mood of the commons and wider public
Which is why Brexit has failed in my view. Its proponents have not convinced the public of any real benefits to offset the real costs, and don't even bother to try.
None of this is even slightly true about the disciplines, rules and practices of criminal lawyers. Whether or not the client's account of the facts amounts to a criminal offence (guilt) is central to their concerns.
I posted this earlier today and you are in denial trying to excuse Mandelson's ill fated, ill judged, and idiotic appointment:
Good morning
The irony in all this is Dame Karen Pierce was a highly respected UK Ambassador to the US, and had she continued, not only would our relationship have prospered without the malign appointment of Mandelson known for his connection with Epstein but also his connections now revealed with Russia and China but Starmer would have avoided his inevitable legacy of Mandelson
Anybody trying to excuse Starmer's appointment which he made before the vetting process had completed is not going to win that argument and the only question is when will Starmer finally have to resign
The fact that 30 years since the USSR broke up, Russia and Ukraine are now at war is not encouraging either
What we have now, that we did not have at the time of the referendum, is a fairly significant period of real results. Anyone not trying to make a partisan point should focus not on assumptions but on actual results over that period. This is extremely difficult and made much more so by the major intervening events such as Covid, Ukraine and now Iran. Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU? if there is, I have yet to see it. We have certainly not done spectacularly as some claimed we would. But we seem broadly in the middle of the pack. It seems to me that the pre-Brexit trends have continued. That is disappointing. But it is not some disaster.
Many trials during that period took a scant thirty minutes.
https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/The_Old_Bailey_Criminal_Trial
(Note, for example, defendants didn't swear an oath, since it was assumed they would perjure themselves; nor were they allowed to compelling witnesses for the defence.)
Some teenager just doing it for the money, is going to leave both metaphorical and physical fingerprints all over the place.
What a pillock Starmer really is
I’m heading for Saint Étienne de Montluc, or somewhere near. Then I can get to Nantes early enough tomorrow to explore the city and get my clothes washed
I had hoped to get to Nantes on day three, and then spend two nights there. This isn’t much different, and makes up for my slow start
The distance itself doesn’t matter much to me. I’d just really like to have all of my holiday walks joined together by the end of this one, so I want to get to Biarritz
I mentioned the exemplar of Ireland which exists in two camps. But there are plenty of examples of countries going their own way without wishing to rejoin e.g. Czechoslovakia, or the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, or Poland and Lithuania. The only country that seems to want to get the old band back again is Russia and that's not going too well.
And it is well within living memory when the defendant could still give an unsworn statement from the dock, when jury retirements took minutes not hours and days, when big trials took a few days not weeks or months, summings up could be savage, sentencing fairly random, the death penalty was given for murder without discretion, no alibi warning was required, police wrote up massively long interviews after the event in the canteen and trials were all about verbals, similar fact evidence was rare as was hearsay and anonymous evidence, juries were male property owners. Lots more.
And at what time does the other shoe drop tomorrow? That will be even more interesting,
Starmer's future could be in Robbins' hands.
The highest support though is for a closer relationship with the EU without rejoining the single market and customs union either. 61% of voters back that, including 70% of Tory and 55% of Reform voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/17/half-britons-support-rejoining-eu-10-years-brexit-vote
By this argument you wouldn't expect Brexit to have created the same benefits as Scottish independence, because Britain's population is still too large. I'm not sure if I'm completely convinced by this argument, but I think it's a point in favour of as much devolution as possible to English regions of about the size of Yorkshire.
Ooops part 472, SKS ignored cabinet office advice on the best process for this political appointment
But if you look at the 'official' predictions then the Remain side:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu
were immediately and comprehensively wrong.
By comparison the Leave side predictions were inevitably more vacuous with only semi-official promises of spending more on the NHS and controlling EU migration. Both of which have happened.
Is there not a group of voters who would have been willing to go for Scottish independence within the EU, but not outside it?
The 1745 Rising was more a War between a Protestant Hanoverian King and a Roman Catholic Jacobite deposed King's grandson
"Is there evidence that the UK has performed materially worse than those countries that remained in the EU?" That's not necessarily the right comparison. One would expect both the UK and the remainder of the EU to have been hurt by Brexit.
That is why he needs to go - the secondary problem is there is no one in a position to replace him