The wheels on the bus go round and... Oh dear. Chancellor Sajid Javid unveils spending review "Today we put the wheels back on the Great British bus," said chancellor of the exchequer Sajid Javid in his autumn spending review – the day after the opposite happened to the wheels of government. Javid announced £200m of increased funding "to transform bus services, making best use of technology and promoting …
The budget was also light on announcements concerning the upgrade of UK border controls and associated systems. You could almost believe the Tories are convinced post-brexit there will be a stampede of people leaving and the UK won't being needing any meaningful in-bound border controls.
Oh such a sin that was, a figure slightly out because it didn't account for the UK's rebate. Well if you're so concerned about truth now, how about the whopper they told us back in 2004 when eastern European counties gained freedom of movement? We were told there would only be 15,000 a year coming here, only out by a factor of 20 or so. As ever, the true-right warned there would be tidal waves of immigration, and the future of a whole generation of our own would be ruined by low wages and unaffordable housing. As ever, the institutionally anti-British maintream media parroted their usual racism accusations (yawn), and continued celebrating the new replacement underclass.
Without mentioning that Buy to let landlords, already with substantial capital, bought up large swathes of property, daisychaining mortgages, pushing up prices into orbit and forcing out first time buyers entirely from the market, with low end flats in my area going from £13K to £80+K in under 2 years, houses that had sold for £25K suddenly going for well north of £100K in the same timescale (yes I live in the boondocks of the north)
>You do know which government was the original proposer and main supporter of that policy, don't you?
The USA, the idea was that expanding NATO upto the Russian border and incorporating all their former Warsaw pact allies might be a bit "Cuban missile crisis". However having them in the Eu would make sure that they remembered who their new friends were.
Sure but if the mooted 15k per annum figure really was the claim at the time, it doesn't really matter who advocated the policy. OP is merely talking about the figure, not the advocate.
Whether the 15k figure was an outright lie or just a massive underestimate is another issue, and since nobody has an actual predictive crystal ball any estimate is nowt much more than a guess.
Actually, the 15k figure was based on a forecast which assumed that all EU countries would embrace Article 45.
As it happened, only the UK and Ireland did not apply the transition arrangements that allowed the other EU members to delay granting free movement into their countries to 2, 5 or 7 years.
And bearing in mind that the whole matter of enshrining freedom of movement was an initiative by the British government in the first place, I for one am glad we have wrested control back from the foreign impositions forced upon us by ... oh, hang on, no, the other one.
@DiViDeD
no I did not know the EU free movement policy was at the behest of the then UK government. However it doesn't surprise me, given that government's policy towards immigration, with a cabinet member at the time openly boasting of their racism against the English working class.
There was speculation both at the time and subsequently, that both the Tories and Labour saw the prospect of, especially, skilled workers from the former eastern bloc, moving to Britain and undercutting local wages, as a way to curb the effects of wage push inflation.
Incidentally, when the registration of Poles, for example, took place, it turned out that more than half of those registering were already living and working (illegally) in the country, and had been for many years. The biggest impact of registration was that we had a lot more people paying income tax and NI
a figure slightly out because it didn't account for the UK's rebate.
It failed to take account of the rebate and it also failed to take account of the investment from the EU in projects in this country. Things like the massive road improvement scheme on the Heads of the Valleys road. It also failed to take account of the myriad private companies taking EU money for products and services. The best estimate I've seen which accounts for the rebate and the public spending puts the real figure well below £200M, and althogh the private company figure is impossible to calculate accurately, it's at least another few tens of millions off that.
So not 'slightly out', but likely at least double the real figure.
I've made the argument before about taxing the rich to help the poor so I won't make it again.
The irony is that they really didn't need to exaggerate. They could have used a figure of £150M and the sorts of people who resent a proportion of their domestic taxes being used to educate other people's children or to cure other people's ilnesses would still have been outraged.
M.
yes, but that doesn't deter from the truth of the statement, because a UK government could decide to spend it all on the NHS rather than other projects if it wanted.
Which was pretty much the the state the UK was in prior to the government finally recognising that if it gave a slice of money to the EU, the EU would (with behind closed doors advice from the UK government) decide to spend money on projects other than the NHS without the UK media going all OTT that people were dying because the government were spending money on space, science etc.
Of course. Brexit countdown through contraction in the economy and government revenues to the halving in real terms of those two great sacred cows, the state pension and the NHS.
But current profligate spending promises are a poison pill to hurt Labour (and libdems, if they make an electoral comeback at Westminster). Take away whatever space they might have to appear more generous, and push them to promising what everyone will know is pie-in-the-sky.
If I was labour I'd simply declare universal credit was cancelled as a failed policy implemented by a failed politician from a failed and out of touch party and then reinstate the legacy benefits it was meant to replace, and run a serious Universal Basic Income trial (though the DWP would do their damndest to sabotage it to preserve their "empire" and funding)
I'd also dismember PIP and you know....listen to the claimants account of their condition and simply ask their doctors if they have the conditions they claim to have, root out Unums et als "advisors" and break up the DWP (which has become an utterly malevolent and unaccountable entity that answers to no one bar itself ) (note how parties and minsiters change but the song never changes...what happens when private insurers take over the agency resposible for welfare, wonder if they have a "benefits monkey" to throw at staff granting welfare claims?, just like the border agency had an "asylum monkey" thrown at staff who had granted a claim for asylum)
you forget the opportunity to make exactly the same deal as we already have with various states individually - e.g. the hyper-massive fish and sugar deal with Fiji and Papua New Guinea.
We currently export about £160m of stuff to Fifi (oddly it's up on the historic trend of around £50m) and receive back less than £50m. Papua New Guinea is a bit bigger an importer of our stuff with around £280m, compared to us buying £100m of their goods.
Good job we've got such keep negotiators in the Foreign Office - I was almost scared of Brexit for one minute... Now I'm enthused at these opportunities. Who cares about the £33Bn we export to France, or the £50Bn we export to Germany. Never mind that we trade more with the EU than we do with the rest of the world combined...
Who cares about the £33Bn we export to France, or the £50Bn we export to Germany. Never mind that we trade more with the EU than we do with the rest of the world combined...
France & Germany might. But I'm sure they could find alternative suppliers.. Except they'd need to be inside the EU's tariff-wall. There are some other nations that have FTA's with the EU, but according to the MSM, this is an impossibiity for the UK. So everything will get more expensive! Even stuff we could buy from outside the EU under WTO or FTAs.. Including the UK's Commonwealth partners, who're currently on the wrong side of the EU's trade walls.
The humble garlic bulb could be one example. China produces a lot, which lead to an odd smuggling case where people were caught smuggling tonnes of illegal garlic from China, which puzzled me until I saw the high tariffs applied to protect EU growers. The UK doesn't produce much, so just one example of a basic good that could cost less come the revolution.
"Everything will get more expensive..." Well, at least that might have a beneficial effect on the environment; reduce consumption! Not so good for the economy though.
It's one of those great unknowns. Sort of. Supermarkets probably have a very good idea though. But seeing as the EU grew out of agricultural protectionism, food's an area where there's bound to be a huge amount of data. We import a lot from outside the EU already, some of which will be subject to EU tariffs. If being outside the EU means we can avoid those tariffs, then those products could be cheaper, in some cases a lot cheaper.. So I found this about the wacky world of garlic smuggling-
https://www.gro-intelligence.com/insights/articles/the-eu-reeks-of-contraband-garlic
The damage done to buyers prompted EU officials to create a longer term solution to Europe’s garlic dilemma in 2001, when China entered the WTO, where all garlic that exceeded the preset quota limit would be subject to a 9.6 percent ad valorem tariff and an additional fee of 1,200 euros per tonne.
And apparently the UK's been a key garlic smuggling hub, and hence why the EU keeps fining us. Which means more costs for the Garlic Enforcement Agency.
Plus there are other interesting possibilities. So consider poor'ol Ukraine. Convinced that it should embrace the EU, it sacrificed it's trade with Russia. Slight snag, much of the stuff Ukraine produces is also subject to EU internal production quotas, so can't be sold to other EU members easily. Of course it can be exported to non-EU members, like the UK.. Not necessarily good news if it's cereals, because that would obviously compete with our own farmers, but could mean cheaper sunflower seeds & stuff we don't grow (or can't grow) here.
I live in a country that, it's universally acknowledged, has led the way in opening its markets and exposing its farmers to global competition.
And I'm here to tell you, food in New Zealand costs far more than it does in the UK.
For example: New Zealand is famous for its locally produced lamb, beef and dairy. According to my sources, a litre of milk in the UK currently costs around 59p. A litre of milk here in NZ is in the ballpark of $2.40, or 1.24 pounds. Minced beef costs over $15 per kg, more than twice what it does in your local Tesco.
And those are both products that we produce and export in large volumes. I'll leave it to your imagination what imports cost.
This is the reality of a no-tariff economy. Enjoy.
And those are both products that we produce and export in large volumes. I'll leave it to your imagination what imports cost.This is the reality of a no-tariff economy. Enjoy.
Well, you are rather remote. But it was something I noticed when I visited NZ, ie NZ has a large agricultural/dairy sector, yet local produce was so expensive by comparison to the UK. I suspect the answer's more to do with policy than tariffs though, eg-
https://www.clal.it/en/?section=latte_new_zealand
Farm gate raw milk prices July €/100 kg
NZ 29.31
US 36.75
EU 33.52
So all things being equal, NZ milk & dairy should be cheaper. But that excludes stuff like subsidies, which NZ removed, or the effects of various cartels. We have Tescos, you have Fonterra. Our supermarket cartel is regularly accused of using it's buying power to squeeze producers, I don't know if NZ has the same pressure, or Fonterra's just more dominant in managing supply prices.
But it'll be interesting to see what will happen. So NZ went into recession as a result of the head of the Commonwealth moving behind a paywall. If that's removed, that would obviously put pressure on the UK's dairy sector, as would any trade deals with US, Canada etc. In theory, that could mean lower prices for UK consumers, but bad news for producers. But the UK would have the ability to manage that via subsidies or other protection mechanisms rather than being tied to the EU's CAP.
As I interpret it, what's happening is that - well, farmers need to be subsidised somehow. In the EU, that happens by taxpayer-funded subsidies handed directly to farmers. In NZ, it happens through (indirect) price controls artificially inflating prices, so the buyer (rather than the taxpayer) pays.
But the need for someone to pay that subsidy isn't going anywhere. Assuming you want there to be a UK farming sector - and I don't know of anyone who doesn't want that - then someone is going to have to pony up the money currently coming from the EU to support them. Direct government subsidies (as now, but paid directly by the government) would presumably be a good deal - but it would further dent the UK budget. The alternative is basically to double the price of everything.
The list of opportunities depends on what trade deal there is. At one extreme if we stayed in the EU common market, there would be no change and no opportunities. At the other extreme of a hard Brexit and WTO regs, whole rafts of products would be cheaper to produce locally than to import, while other exports would be lost. A fall in import and exports and reduced foreign travel would be better for the environment. Reduced immigration / emigration would stabilise our population and make long term planning / provision better.
What we should have done long ago is form a national Brexit strategy committe that consults with UK industry and decides in what sectors we want tariffs and in what sectors we don't, then used that to negotiate a UK-EU trade deal. Unfortunately our politicians have made a complete shambles of Brexit thus far, but that's their doing and not the fault of Brexiteers.
Since joining the common market Britain has been in steady economic decline, we've lost many large companies, run up a huge trade defecit, seen our relative world standing fade, while in real terms our young people are poorer than they were. So in hindsight we didn't join for selfish gain, but to assist the economic development of other EU countries. So why complain now if leaving the EU causes some short term pain, from your short-termist selfish perspective?
Since joining the common market Britain has been in steady economic decline, we've lost many large companies, run up a huge trade defecit, seen our relative world standing fade, while in real terms our young people are poorer than they were. So in hindsight we didn't join for selfish gain, but to assist the economic development of other EU countries. So why complain now if leaving the EU causes some short term pain, from your short-termist selfish perspective?
Because, Mr AC, he wasn't saying its going to cause them pain. Something affecting our EU exports is going to cause job losses and recession here. Jacob Rees-Smug lounging on the front benches and Bloody Stupid Johnson calling Corbyn "Caracas" is not "winning", its the last death throws of the Tory party.
"No deal" would cause awful economic problems for the UK, and the probable break-up of the UK.
May's deal is like staying in the EU, but with none of the benefits.
PS: GDP growth since joining the EC. Oh look, we're all connected in one global economy, who the fuck knew.
Since joining the common market Britain has been in steady economic decline, we've lost many large companies, run up a huge trade defecit, seen our relative world standing fade, while in real terms our young people are poorer than they were Also since we joined skirts have got longer, policeman have got younger and Rupert Murdoch has got richer. One of those facts may be correlated with economic decline.
"What we should have done long ago is form a national Brexit strategy committe that consults with UK industry and decides in what sectors we want tariffs and in what sectors we don't, then used that to negotiate a UK-EU trade deal. "
This bit is absolutely correct, and even I, as a staunch Remainder", am mystified by the lack of planning. There was no need, or sense, in going for the earliest possible leaving date - spending a little time actually finding out what was needed, and maybe even asking the population what was good/bad about the EU would have avoided all the clusterfuck since then.
"Unfortunately our politicians have made a complete shambles of Brexit thus far, but that's their doing and not the fault of Brexiteers."
I'm calling bollocks on the assertion that it is not the fault of the Brexiteers - the lunatic rump of the Tory party plus the high-pitched whining from those now known as the Brexit Party - would not have allowed anything other than "action now!" To actually think about what is to be achieved would have been a "betrayal of the people who just want out". Look at the posts here by @codejunky for evidence of this.
"Since joining the common market Britain has been in steady economic decline, we've lost many large companies, run up a huge trade defecit, seen our relative world standing fade, while in real terms our young people are poorer than they were."
None of this has anything to do with the EU, and everything to do with successive useless governments in the UK. There is nothing that the EU have mandated that required large companies to be sold, a deficit to be run up, or the futures of young people to be trashed. The latter can be squarely placed at the feet of unnecessary "austerity measures" imposed by bastard Tories, but before that, screwing with education such that e.g. languages were deprecated (difficult to work abroad if you can't speak the language), and science was Elfin Safetied out of any use. Our relative World standing can also be placed at the feet of UK politicians following the lead of the USA in meaningless Wars Against Stuff, and acting immorally whilst doing so (torture, killing civilians, lying about everything (e.g. WMD))
@Intractable Potsherd
"To actually think about what is to be achieved would have been a "betrayal of the people who just want out". Look at the posts here by @codejunky for evidence of this."
Thanks for the mention. And of course it would be seen as betrayal, look at the conduct of remain and you wouldnt trust them for a split second-
>Government after government is elected on the promise of a say over membership with the EU.
>Cameron is going to the EU to ask for great changes- a damp squib.
>If he doesnt get them he will back leave. Doesnt get them but backs remain.
>Refuses to do any preparation for brexit because he is confident we wont vote leave.
>He spends taxpayer money for propaganda leaflets to avoid spending limits.
>He rewrites Obama's speech to make brexit look like a bad idea.
>He will be the one to negotiate brexit if the result comes in and art50 will be submitted that day: it isnt, he resigns.
I havnt even mentioned the last 3 years yet and the date for leaving was earlier this year. So yes more preparation would have been a good idea. Even over the 2 year negotiation (and then extended) preparations would have been better than trying to dictate remain.
Or to make this even easier- we had a vote, we got a result, the people employed to apply that result are actively working against it. So yes that is betrayal.
"Unfortunately our politicians have made a complete shambles of Brexit thus far, but that's their doing and not the fault of Brexiteers."
The politicians making a hash of it are brexiteers. Well, I suppose May wasn't originally, but she at least managed to get some kind of deal. Rees-Mogg has so far only managed to make lots of money for his company in Ireland.
"while in real terms our young people are poorer than they were"
Is that the same young people who don't want to leave Europe? How kind you are saving them from themselves...
The politicians making a hash of it are brexiteers. Well, I suppose May wasn't originally, but she at least managed to get some kind of deal. Rees-Mogg has so far only managed to make lots of money for his company in Ireland.
Hmm.. So there was a deal. The EU told us it was the only deal. The EU told us we must take it, or leave it.
So Parliament voted against that deal 3 times. It didn't produce a counter deal for the EU to reject. Instead, it's wibbled about 'democracy' whilst ignoring the referendum result. So we're now in an odd position where the Remnants demand a better deal, have regularly demanded a General Election, but when given the chance, have bottled the opportunity to lead the EU negotiations or the UK in general.
It's strange that HM's Loyal Opposition aren't jumping at the chance to lead the UK, lead the negotiations, secure us a better deal and respect the wishes of the people. Then again, I guess it would be rather unfortunate & undemocratic if we, the people didn't vote Corbyn..
Given that the Supreme Court confirmed parliament's right to scrutinise any deal, it was the government's fault for not involving parliament earlier. Just like it was applying to leave without having worked out a strategy.
Parliament has not ignored the result of the referendum. But the result was also never a piece of policy, let alone legislation. For example, the referendum never said whether the UK should stay in a free trade area with EU or in a customs union, it was also silent over the UK-Ireland border, although it has already agreed by treaty to avoid one. Difficult to do once this becomes an external border.
Parliament and the government have to decide how best to interpret the referendum, including what kind of relationship it should pursue with the EU. People hate such details, which is why catchy, populists slogans are so effective. Strange thing is, however, catchy, populist slogans don't solve problems either.
Parliament has not ignored the result of the referendum.
Yes it has. The UK voted to leave. It hasn't left. It was a simple leave/remain choice, with no conditions attached.. Until after the result. Now we have the strange situation where the opposition is binding the government.
But the result was also never a piece of policy, let alone legislation.
Except of course the referendum was a piece of legislation. This one in fact-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
And as that passed through Parliament, our democratic process provided the opportunity to add conditions or caveats.. But it did not. So after realising the results, the losers decided it wasn't binding, they were just kidding, and 'Leave' really meant 'Remain'.
Which just goes to show the contempt politicians hold for the public, or democracy in general.
For example, the referendum never said whether the UK should stay in a free trade area with EU or in a customs union, it was also silent over the UK-Ireland border, although it has already agreed by treaty to avoid one. Difficult to do once this becomes an external border.
Not really. The UK has repeatedly stated that it's fine with a soft border. Problem is borders have two sides, so Ireland is bound to implement the EU's border policies. The EU could of course 'unbind' Ireland and recognise the 21st Century, plus of course previous experience dealing with the ROI/NI border means it doesn't need walls, fences, border posts and checkpoints.. And has even objected strongly when countries like Hungary have implemented those.
FTA or trade agreements in general are just one of those issues that would be a result of voting Leave. There's no reason why they must be pre-negotiated, or why the UK shouldn't expect an FTA like other non-EU countries have.
It was a simple leave/remain choice, with no conditions attached.
That is just one of the many interpretations. Inasmuchas staying in the single market or customs union would also involve leaving the EU, they were and are equally valid.
This is why parliament sought and was granted by the Supreme Court permission to scrutinise the process and vote on any negotiated settlement, all the Daily Mail, et al. bluster notwithstanding.
Just like it was applying to leave without having worked out a strategy.
This. A hundered times this.
Regardless of remain or leave leanings, pulling the Art.50 trigger without having the first clue what was actually wanted or how to achieve that was the height of moronic political hubris.
As it is we're left with this unending stalemate. The EU's "deal" has been voted down 3 times, but there are so many different camps we can't coallesce around one unified counter deal.
EU won't open renegotiation because they believe we'll do anything to avoid no-deal. And now we're on course to bin the nuclear option*, EU has zero incentive to reopen negotiations and this stalemate will go on forever.
At least until someone has the balls to revoke A50 until we've worked out how this might actually work, or if there's still the same desire there was... dare I suggest... put it back to the people since there's way more information than we had in 2016.
* That's the trouble with nuclear options. Nobody realistically wants to use them. But if you don't have them, or the other side knows you won't dare use them, you cede all negotiating power to the other side. This is true in pretty much any negotiation, Brexit or otherwise.
> It's strange that HM's Loyal Opposition aren't jumping at the chance to lead the UK, lead the negotiations, secure us a better deal and respect the wishes of the people
Because the only reason De Pfeffer and his cohorts have tabled the motion for an election is to increase the chances of a No Deal Brexit, which will severely shit on the UK economy, but benefit their financial backers who have been vigorously shorting sterling for the last month or two.
but benefit their financial backers who have been vigorously shorting sterling for the last month or two.
Ah, like this one?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49592100
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend parliament is an unlawful abuse of power, lawyers representing businesswoman Gina Miller have said.
But she's doing it for 'democracy', not because she disagrees with the referendum result. Amusingly she's also joined by another millionaire, one J.Major Esq, who previously prorogued parliament for an extended period to avoid troublesome cash for questions. So presumably Major's prorogation would also have been an unlawful abuse of power. How awkward.
But surely the democratic way to resolve this is go to the people, and let them vote on the government they want to represent the UK during these 'diffilcult' times. Corbyn would have a clear democratic mandate to negotiate on the UK's behalf..
But he's bottled it. The UK voted to leave the EU, the UK still hasn't left.. That isn't democracy, that's a clear demonstration that a large section of Parliament isn't interested in representing the will of their electorate.
"that's a clear demonstration that a large section of Parliament isn't interested in representing the will of their electorate."
To be fair, many (almost half of) MPs hail from constituencies that voted to stay in the EU, so the will of the people that elected them is to prevent Brexit.
To be fair, many (almost half of) MPs hail from constituencies that voted to stay in the EU, so the will of the people that elected them is to prevent Brexit.
Also to be fair, they're the only ones I have any sympathy or respect for.
Not scum like Dr Lee, who's Bracknell constituency voted leave. But I guess he's slightly better than Fiona Onasanya. Peterborough voted Leave by a considerable margin, but ended up with an MP who was released from prison after perverting the course of justice, to vote for an Article 50 extension. And demonstrated an ability to pervert the course of democracy as well given that passed by a single vote..
But that's politics for you.
I've not actually seen a breakdown by constituency/MP. I do know that the MP for where I used to live decided that his constituents wanted the hardest possible brexit despite them (very narrowly) voting to stay in the EU. Bloody farmers, what do they know anyway eh?
Ahem, anyway, it would be interesting to see how many MPs have been voting along the lines their electorates voted for, or along party/personal lines. On whichever side.
Not scum like Dr Lee, who's Bracknell constituency voted leave.
As the referendum wasn't by constituency then it doesn't matter. Furthermore, MPs are representatives and not delegates either of constituences nor party. Numerous votes, not least the repeal of the death penatly, were probably unpopular with a majortiy of constituents at the time. Nevertheless, the principle of the MPs freedom to vote is central to our parliamentary democracy, which we're seeing the current government trying to dismantle.
Yes - the spineless toad who represents me has decided that 'respecting the will of the people' is vital -- just not the will of the 70% of his constituency who voted remain. Fortunately he won't be my MP come the next election, and I'm sure the incoming Liberal MP will do a better job than he ever did.
This post has been deleted by its author
The EU didn't say it was the 'only' deal. They said it was the agreed deal. Apart from the stupidity of having a referendum in the first place, the really dumb thing was Teresa May' combining 'I am seeking consensus' and 'I can't tell you my super duper plan because it's secret', and presenting her deal at the 11th hour. It is her government, a Conservative government, and her Brexiteer dominated negotiators, who go us here. If she had honestly gone for consensus we would be out already, albeit with a customs union - maybe not Nigel F's preferred option but probably saleable;e to a majority of the country and not economic suicide.
And as for the opposition - if you really think Corbyn isn't up for an election you really are deluded. I honestly didn't think he would have the self control to avoid the obvious trap of falling out with no deal in an election period, but thankfully he has.
> The list of opportunities depends on what trade deal there is. At one extreme if we stayed in the EU common market, there would be no change and no opportunities
Why is this? There's been the recent trade deal with Japan that we won't get to enjoy the opportunities of, for example.
Similarly, people have the opportunity to work in any of the 27 EU member states right now, without having to do much paperwork (if any). And Brexiteers want to chuck that away and leave people with fewer opportunities.
Indeed, we do have immigration to our country as well, but we do have the authority to chuck out economic spongers while we are in the EU - you can't just come in and sign on for benefits forever, you have to be economically productive to remain in the country.
The second we leave, everything we buy and sell internationally becomes more expensive. If the muppets in charge drop import tariffs to zero, then while prices might stay the same there is no incentive for other countries to enter into any negotiations to reduce their tariffs on our goods/services, thus making it hard for us to sell to anyone.
This should surely be enough of a reason to stay in without having to go into more speculative stuff about chlorinated chicken and selling the NHS
The moon! On a stick! Special robots to cure cancer, made out of gold!
I for one am quite confident they'll figure out how to pay for it all later.
His Excellency Professor Doctor Lord Baron Admiral General Field Marshall Emperor King Boris the Great Vaniquisher of the Europeans, Trade Deal maker extraordinaire, defender of the Union, will simply restore the empire (as we only lost it due to "them euros" according to the Brextremists and the colonials will be "begging to come back to our rule as they can't run their own affairs competently") and thus create the extra money our economy requires and if all else fails make for the nearest airport with caseloads of foreign currency.....
And when he fails, he can head off to Trumpland courtesy of that US passport he holds.
Perhaps he can get a job as a bussboy for Trump the Maleofant at Trump Towers?
Go now Boris and take Jeremy Corbyn with you. Perhaps then we might get a governent that will take us forward but somehow I doubt it.
I do know that come the next election, I won't be voting Tory, Lab, Lib-Dem or Brexit Party. They have all done untold damage to not only out country but the world. Any canvasser who knocks on my door from those parties will get a barrage from me that Jellico would be broud of.
Another one who still blames the Lib Dems for not completely overruling the majority party during the coalition, huh?
However, if there was a general election tomorrow, even as a Lib Dem member I'd vote SNP, because that's the only way we'll get another referendum on ditching England. If the Scottish LibDems backed a referendum, they would take almost half the seats that the SNP hold.
Yet Swinson carefully neglects to mention happily voting for Austerity, PIP, Universal Credit, various funding cuts etc.......
Wolf in sheeps clothing so she is...duplicitious little madam playing holier than thou when she is as dirty as the rest.
Then again at least folk know who she is, I don't think the Scot Libdems even know who Willie Rennie is or what he looks like.....man makes John Major look interesting....
Swinson quite literally did the opposite of your statement, even before she became leader, as anyone paying a moderate amount of attention would have noticed. "We must own the failures of the coalition".
According to Theyworkforyou, How Jo Swinson voted on Welfare and Benefits
Almost always voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the "bedroom tax")
11 votes for, 1 vote against, 6 absences, between 2012–2018
Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices
0 votes for, 5 votes against, in 2013
Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
0 votes for, 7 votes against, between 2011–2012
Consistently voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support
4 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2012
Almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits
26 votes for, 0 votes against, 5 absences, between 2012–2015
Almost always voted against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed
Admitting you made a mistake doesn't undo the continuining harm that she and her colleagues have caused the disabled and others. It didn't apply during the Nuremburg trials so why are people arguing "I was just following orders" nowadays?
On a side note
A friend of mine just got confirmation in writing from the minister in question (Shirley Anne Somerville) that the SNPs replacement for PIP (DAWAP - the stupidest name I've ever heard) will be structurally the same as PIP and will not deviate from whats currently in place, same descriptors, same assesment criteria, same payrates, same "reviews" even for those with degenerative diseases who won't "get better" and worse the only criteria for Social Security Scotland assesors is that they have knowledge of health issues in the public or third sector, so a Drs receptionist could conceivably be doing disability assesments, somewhere not even the DWP stooped so low - so much for compassionate, fairer and fit for purpose. As usual with the SNP, announce one thing, stall for aeons until people start banging the drum about nothing being done, and then do something entirely different to what was announced originally while claiming those criticising it are being "unfair" "doing down Scotland" "we're doing all we can without independence" (its devolved so this DAWAP failure is wholly on them)
So either the dear leader has commanded that they just copy and paste PIP, change the logos, give the wording a tweak and do a find/replace of PIP for DAWAP.
No answer as to what they have been doing the last 2.5 years....whale song mindfulness sessions to devise corporate branding, multiple committees to decide on colour schemes
Yet they claim to be aping or exceeding best practice in Europe, yet they are maintaining the same low rates of payment (some of the lowest in Europe), harsh assessment criteria and denigrating the disabled.
Neither was there an answer in regards to the potential for laid off ATOS/IAS workers to be rehired for Social Security Scotland due to their prior work experience undertaking disability assessments. They refused to put a block on the private sector into the relevant law, so I fully expect that to be snuck in at somepoint soon.
Seems the "Tartan Tories" epithet labour gave them for years ain't far from the truth, proper lot of Blairites or full blown Tories so they are. surprised IDS hasn't been asked to join the SNP yet......
Odd you should mention Willie Rennie - he is my local LibDem representative. I've had several interesting conversations with him - he's a nice, intelligent person. I don't agree with him on everything - another independence referendum, for example - but he argues his case well.
I don't see any reason for a politician to be "interesting" - I quite like John Major for that reason. "Interesting" politicians come with names like Thatcher, Blair, Farage - and look where they got us. I'd rather have politicians who put their job before their ego.
Any canvasser who knocks on my door from those parties will get a barrage from me that Jellico would be broud of.
I tend to stay polite as long as they simply ask, it's not one of the most fun jobs in the world. There's also no real point in arguing with them, it's not like they have a direct line to the party top to report your arguments. I reserve less civilised behaviour for those who really deserve it like Scientologists or Boris and Corbyn themselves.
I reserve less civilised behaviour for those who really deserve it like Scientologists or Boris and Corbyn themselves.
The last time I spoke to a young Conservative, I thought I was talking to a Scientologist; their zeal and enthusiasm for all things DineticsBrexit and RonBoris...
Speaking as someone who once worked in the commercial vehicle industry, where buses and coaches were once made. Do we still have a bus manufacturing facility? Or are these a British Bus badged import? The site of the factory I once worked in, that had been there for the best part of a hundred years has long since been a Morrison's supermarket. Which, nice as it is for out-of-town shopping, has never earned a penny of export income.
Perfect, they can call it the Opt-out and get some more customers..
Ah, good old Dennis the Menace, so called cos they snapped in half after 10,000 miles at the bodywork mounting points. Still, better than the Leyland National (disgrace) series 1 - with the brainstorm that was the 510 engine - so called because that's about how many miles it managed before it blew up (if you were nice to it, and gave it hugs, and tucked it in at night).
Those brexiteers who think this is a great idea. Look up ADO17 & ADO17 Aerodynamica (and look at the one we got). Look up the Triumph "Innsbruck" "screwy" strike and that memorable one in a wartime coal mine where the whole place shut down "cos we don't like the tea lady"... It's like Brassed Off crossed with Bake Off..
Anyone got a Garibaldi?
Yeah love, Italy but I think he's passed his sell by date.
And the general population have only got more retarded and clueless in the intervening years.
Bloody Stupid Johnson is like that guy from Life on Mars - "he's got more fingers in more pies, than a leper on a cookery course" but the problem is none of them have a clue what they're supposed to be doing..
Well Boris did cycle up till he became PM (which makes you wonder why he isn't thin as a rake if he does all that cycling....does he survive on a diet of pure lard or something to make up the calories???)
Maybe should just issue every MP a bicycle and require them to commute from their constituencies on it, you know to "lead the way and set an example about being carbon neutral" (Caroline Lucas could be the first, being such a committed eco warrior and all - money where her mouth is and all.....)
I'm almost wondering if the Trump, Boris, Brexit, Bolsonaro omnishambles is just a huge conspiracy to make sure we don't notice that we've gone extinct until after we've gone extinct.. Because it doesn't make any sense otherwise. Kind of like a worldwide "B Ark"...
To paraphrase Capt. Edmund Blackadder, erstwhile of the 1945th East African Rifles.
From: Vulture Central
To: Miss Greta Thunburg, attached Inbredistani General Staff
Fighting against climate change great idea STOP however somewhat akin to fighting Battle of Prokhorovka in an Astramax diesel STOP So you may as well STOP *ADDITIONAL*
Suggestion to use Donald Trump and family as boresight target(s) (live ammunition) brilliant idea STOP Don't let them ever STOP
Well, my father wasn't a bus driver, but I too understand the amazingly complex concept of public transport.
However, it sounds a bit more street cred than mentioning that he is a multi millionaire former director of Deutsche Bank, and therefore understands the importance of money. The list of controversies that bank is involved in is fairly impressive, from market rigging to money laundering to financing Donald Trump, as is the amount it's been fined by regulators so far in the past 15 years.
My mother was once pregnant so I am uniquely qualified to run the NHS's maternity dept.
Funny you should mention that-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49598999
A doctor who spoke out against the government's no-deal plans has said Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg is "bullying whistleblowers"...
..Dr Nicholl, a consultant neurologist with Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, shared his concerns about the supply of drugs in the event of a no-deal Brexit in an interview with BBC Newsnight in March.
And on Monday he called in to LBC to ask Mr Rees-Mogg what mortality rate he would accept if the UK were to leave the EU without a deal.
Outrageous! I'm sure Dr Nicholl is an excellent neurologist. I'm less sure of his experience or credentials in logistics or supply chain management. That's done by a different bit of the NHS, ie it's bulk drug dealers*.. and/or pharmacists who wholesale or do the street-level dealing. So there's a list of required drugs, prescribing rates, current inventory, and a list of licensed manufacturers and suppliers. Joing the dots isn't exactly Dr Nicholl's job, or speciality. But hey, what a great soundbite on LBC from 'Project Fear'.
*And of course due to various litigation in the US and elsewhere, there may be an oversupply of opiates and other painkillers used in neurology. And being a chronic pain (sufferer), I'm not entirely happy about the way those drugs are being demonised. They have been overprescribed, but they're also very necessary to manage chronic pain.
Outrageous! I'm sure Dr Nicholl is an excellent neurologist. I'm less sure of his experience or credentials in logistics or supply chain management
Nicholl, a consultant neurologist who drew up a risk register of epilepsy and neurology drugs for the government’s Operation Yellowhammer no-deal plans.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/rees-mogg-condemned-for-comparing-doctor-to-disgraced-anti-vaxxer-autism
He appears eminently qualified to comment.
They have been overprescribed, but they're also very necessary to manage chronic pain
On the other hand, *Consultant* *Neurologist* is not at all the same level of expertise as 'some prick on the internet', when it comes to the use of neurology drugs. Shame, you were in the 'spoons that day, you could have checked his homework for the *official* *Government* *plan*.
He appears eminently qualified to comment.
Ah, the Grauniad being outraged. Imagine my suprise! So which part don't you understand? He may well be an emminent neurologist, but again, he's not an expert in supply chain management. His role is to specify what that function needs, it's down to other experts to make sure they're delivered.
But from the Grauniad-
The pair first clashed on Monday on LBC radio when Nicholl challenged Rees-Mogg to say how many people he would accept could die because of a lack of access to drugs and radioactive isotopes.
Supply challenges for isotopes are much larger than Brexit given the EU and loony Greens want all nuclear reactors shut down. Or just this one-
https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/reactor-shut-down-will-cause-global-medical-isotope-shortage
Finally, the Netherlands has a unique position in the supply chain now. The Netherlands not only has a reactor but also the laboratory to produce the radiopharmaceuticals to be used in hospitals.
Medical isotopes often having an even shorter shelf-life than supermarket tomatoes.. But that's also a market the UK could supply once freed from the EU's energy shackles. Canada's another big supplier, but Canadian Greens want their Candu reactors shut down.
On the other hand, *Consultant* *Neurologist* is not at all the same level of expertise as 'some prick on the internet',
Nice..
Shame, you were in the 'spoons that day, you could have checked his homework for the *official* *Government* *plan*.
Not really in the spoons, just on the meds supplied by my Consultant Neurologist.. Who isn't at all concerned about supply. As for homework, I'm fairly sure that would have been classified. I'm also fairly sure one of the risks identified would be Occupy or XR-styled 'peaceful protests' blocking ports and affecting distribution. It may even contain mortality rates for worst-case scenarios because that's the kind of stuff governments consider.
Issue is still understanding why simple import/export processes would suddenly stop, just because we're leaving the EU. Do you think the EU will suddenly forbid exports, or the UK will block imports of stuff where there are well established supply chains operating now, including contingencies, ie if UK/EU drug factory has to halt production, supplies can come from other plants.
Ah, the Grauniad being outraged. Imagine my suprise! So which part don't you understand? He may well be an emminent neurologist, but again, he's not an expert in supply chain management. His role is to specify what that function needs, it's down to other experts to make sure they're delivered.
He wrote the plan, he is uniquely qualified to comment on this matter.
What part don't you understand?
He wrote the plan, he is uniquely qualified to comment on this matter.What part don't you understand?
His decision to try and score political points. But it's about the plan, and his contributions. So the contentious bit-
The pair first clashed on Monday on LBC radio when Nicholl challenged Rees-Mogg to say how many people he would accept could die because of a lack of access to drugs and radioactive isotopes.
Which is a bit of a rhetorical question, not to mention asking the wrong person. So the correct target would Matt Hancock, he being the Health Secretary. How many people could die is Dr Nicholl's area of expertise, and normal part of risk or sensitivity analysis. Produce a list of relevant drugs, minimum stock levels, then impact if X is unavailable for Y. Then probably input into prioritisation and/or rationing, so if supplies were unavailable, who'd get priority and outcomes for people that don't.
So simple example.. I'm prescribed a bunch of pain meds, and if those were unavailable, I wouldn't die, It'd just be rather uncomfortable. If I were undergoing radiotherapy & isotopes weren't available, then I could die.
But that's all down to IF, and why after 3 years, supply chains weren't scrutinised and plans drawn up to prevent supply disruption, along with how supples might be disrupted. So I get a prescription from my NHS doc, Boots fills that with drugs from Teva and others.
Why should that come to a crashing halt on Nov 1st? Prescriptions would still be valid, Boots would still be licenced to supply/manufacture/import, and Teva would presumably still be licenced.. If that part is currently under an 'EU' licence, it wouldn't seem hard to grandfather those approvals or issue UK M.A licences.
But that's all down to IF, and why after 3 years, supply chains weren't scrutinised and plans drawn up to prevent supply disruption, along with how supples might be disrupted. So I get a prescription from my NHS doc, Boots fills that with drugs from Teva and others.
The supply chains where scrutinised and plans drawn up, it's just that every sane plan says "Revoke A50." Otherwise sooner or later something critical will be delayed with severe consequences.
His decision to try and score political points. But it's about the plan, and his contributions. So the contentious bit- Reese-Mogg claims this is a good idea, seems fair to ask the price of this good idea.
Issue is still understanding why simple import/export processes would suddenly stop, just because we're leaving the EU. Do you think the EU will suddenly forbid exports, or the UK will block imports of stuff where there are well established supply chains operating now, including contingencies, ie if UK/EU drug factory has to halt production, supplies can come from other plants.
It's Q theory, Q in practise, will run full or run empty. A system designed for low latency, typically has low capacity, with a minor delay resulting in back-pressure induced slowdowns.
A system designed for capacity, will have high latency, so will absorb and smooth over issues, by aggregation of loads.
We have a hard dependency on a low-latency Q, we don't have a way of replacing that dependency, either quickly, or cheaply, in some cases at all.
We have a hard dependency on a low-latency Q, we don't have a way of replacing that dependency, either quickly, or cheaply, in some cases at all.
Why not? So picking something sensitive & low latency..
Technetium-99m is used in millions of diagnostic procedures. It has a half-life of around 6hrs, so is impractical to transport long distances. So hospitals milk moly-cows that feed off molybdenum-99, which has a half-life of 66hrs. Which means regular shipments molybdenum-99 from-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m#Production
Mostly HFR in the Netherlands. Transporting nuclear material is obviously rather sensitive, and HFR ships to customers around the world.. because there's a general shortage of high-flux reactors suitable for this kind of alchemy. If you look at the list, there's a lot of old reactors. HFR's due to be replaced by Pallas, but there have been supply concerns for years due to anti-nuclear campaigning.
But HFR already ships to the UK, so other than paperwork, what changes Nov 1st? Are our public servants really so useless that they can't even create the right paperwork?
Technetium-99m is used in millions of diagnostic procedures. It has a half-life of around 6hrs, so is impractical to transport long distances. So hospitals milk moly-cows that feed off molybdenum-99, which has a half-life of 66hrs. Which means regular shipments molybdenum-99 from-
I'm not sure you meant to type this, alternatively, I am finding it difficult to parse hospitals milk moly-cows that feed off molybdenum-99.
In either case, the fact remains, we are going to experience disruptions to the smooth flow of traffic and goods across the various ports of the UK. The consequences of the disruption will range from minor delay at one end to expiration of the transported produce at the other.
That is not something that can be mitigated either for financial reasons or practical reasons.
But HFR already ships to the UK, so other than paperwork, what changes Nov 1st?
The requirement to fill in large numbers of complicated declarations resulting in tailbacks, as inevitably, people complete the declaration incorrectly.
Back pressure occurs, the Queue fills, disruptions occur.
This post has been deleted by its author
(reposted cos I was a lil slow with the last edit.)
I'm not sure you meant to type this, alternatively, I am finding it difficult to parse hospitals milk moly-cows that feed off molybdenum-99.
I guess that's where Dr Nicholl and 'some prick on the internet' have something in common. But to explain for someone who may be hard of thinking. A 'moly-cow' is a medical device used in radiology departments to produce technectium-99m from a molybdenum-99 source, aka milking it. The molybdenum source has a limited useful life (6 days, ish) and needs to be replaced regularly. And as the supply chain is rather fragile, contingency plans already exist in case of supply disruption.
In either case, the fact remains, we are going to experience disruptions to the smooth flow of traffic and goods across the various ports of the UK.
That isn't a fact, it's a supposition. Or perhaps a self-fulfilling prophesy if people decide to be actively obstructive. But for trade, there's no good reason to do that given suppliers want to get paid.
The requirement to fill in large numbers of complicated declarations resulting in tailbacks, as inevitably, people complete the declaration incorrectly.
Possible I suppose. So companies that have never imported/exported outside the EU may never have done that before, but it's all standard stuff based on WCO and GATT rules. And the WCO is based in bureaucracy central, aka 'Brussels', so not hard to seek advice. And of course HMCR and the Euroports are all used to dealing with global trade.
So to summarise your interpretation of Dr Nicholl's comments, you think people will die because bureaucrats can't fill out paperwork correctly?
I guess that's where Dr Nicholl and 'some prick on the internet' have something in common.
Questioning the qualifications of the eminent consultant, whilst not presenting your own for comparison, is massively worthy of mockery. I accept the use of the word 'prick' was a poor substitute for 'random' which would have made the same point, in a more polite fashion.
molly-cows
My ignorance on the milking of, and the existence of molly-cows, thank you for explaining.
Supply Chain
That isn't a fact, it's a supposition. Or perhaps a self-fulfilling prophesy if people decide to be actively obstructive. But for trade, there's no good reason to do that given suppliers want to get paid. Again, Queue theory dictates, there will be tailbacks, it's a foregone conclusion.
The only question is how bad the disruption will be, there is no possibility that a system that is utterly reliant on low latency, will adapt to high latency without issue.
tailbacks
Now, you might point at my lack of qualification to comment on the matter being a software bod, and you'd be right, so how about the European Transport Forum.
The Port of Dover has looked at the potential impact of more checks on lorries and – through independent modelling – estimates that two minutes of extra processing time for each lorry would lead to tailbacks of 30km. Researchers at Imperial College, London, go further: they estimated that extra check times could lead to tailbacks of up to 50km.https://www.europeantransportforum.eu/mediaroom/how-a-no-deal-brexit-would-cause-chaos/And UK government research show that trucks would face six-day queues to board ferries at Dover if new customs checks were to delay each vehicle by just 70 seconds – while extra processing time of 80 seconds per truck would lead to permanent gridlock, “which would mean the whole country is in a traffic jam,” one official said.
Correctness of declarations
Possible I suppose. So companies that have never imported/exported outside the EU may never have done that before, but it's all standard stuff based on WCO and GATT rules. And the WCO is based in bureaucracy central, aka 'Brussels', so not hard to seek advice. And of course HMCR and the Euroports are all used to dealing with global trade.
People will get it wrong, its complicated enough that it's a specialised job to fill the declarations in correctly. As an example, I want to import some unsliced bread from France, some Edam cheese from Holland, some salted butter from Denmark, all into the UK, I want to export a sandwich to Dublin.
Genuinely look at the official advice and tell me that the average person is going to get that even vaguely right. This is the government page on the matter.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/declaring-your-goods-at-customs-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal
Questioning the qualifications of the eminent consultant, whilst not presenting your own for comparison, is massively worthy of mockery...My ignorance on the milking of, and the existence of molly-cows, thank you for explaining.
Quite. 1) It's 'moly', ie short for 'molybdenum'. 2) I am unaware of Dr Nicholl's qualifications in logistics, or import/export.
The Port of Dover has looked at the potential impact of more checks on lorries and – through independent modelling – estimates that two minutes of extra processing time for each lorry would lead to tailbacks of 30km.
Back to 'if'. Why would every lorry need checking when much of the paperwork is electronic, so HMRC can use their intelligence to decide which lorries to check.
Genuinely look at the official advice and tell me that the average person is going to get that even vaguely right. This is the government page on the matter.
The 'average person' isn't going to be ordering millions of pills for the NHS or pharmacies. Those people should already be well aware of the paperwork needed.. And as far as delays go, if we're importing, form-filling would mostly be the responsibility of the exporter. And most pharma companies in the UK and EU already export outside both, so would (should) be familiar with the process.
For small traders, it's something generally they'd only need to get right once, ie correctly declaring their products for export to the EU bloc. Customs brokers can assist if necessary. For individuals, it's a bit more complex, ie completing ATA Carnets for taking stuff to trade shows, concerts etc.. But again not really that difficult. Then again, EU changes to VAT haven't exactly made small trader's lives easy for trading within the EU.
But I can understand the FUD, especially coming from the likes of BBC or Grauniad journalists who've never traded, and simply get their pharmaceuticals via a phone call to their supplier.
The 'average person' isn't going to be ordering millions of pills for the NHS or pharmacies. Those people should already be well aware of the paperwork needed.. And as far as delays go, if we're importing, form-filling would mostly be the responsibility of the exporter. And most pharma companies in the UK and EU already export outside both, so would (should) be familiar with the process.
For small traders, it's something generally they'd only need to get right once, ie correctly declaring their products for export to the EU bloc. Customs brokers can assist if necessary. For individuals, it's a bit more complex, ie completing ATA Carnets for taking stuff to trade shows, concerts etc.. But again not really that difficult. Then again, EU changes to VAT haven't exactly made small trader's lives easy for trading within the EU.
The people getting it right will be behind the people getting in wrong in the large queue, as people are stupid, and if they can screw up, they will. Every design principle starts with removing the ways that people can screw up. https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30732/how-useful-is-this-coffee-cup-hot-contents-warning
So to summarise your interpretation of Dr Nicholl's comments, you think people will die because bureaucrats can't fill out paperwork correctly?
No. I think the supply chain disruption will eventually lead to a critical failure, causing some avoidable negative consequences, some of which could result in the death of people.
As of yet, we are still arguing over if it's going to be as bad as some people say..
Might we table that, and return to the point of why you think this is a good idea to brexit in the first place?
Parliament just voted to keep him in power for.. well, it's all rather confusing.
I need to read Hansard tomorrow but I'm fairly sure I heard the Prime Minister state, in Parliament, that he will refuse to comply with the obligations imposed upon the Prime Minister by the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill. That's going to get interesting.
>They don't have time, after all it's being prorogued next week.
Shame our politicians are so spineless; I was hoping that they going to show themselves to be true heirs of Cromwell and pass a motion saying Parliament as sovereign and thus didn't recognised the power of proroguing... Now that would be a constitutional crisis...
What are the penalties for contempt of Parliament, anyway?
I think you can be banged up by Black Rod. AFAIK there are still cells in/around Parliament where contemptible politicians can be sent to cool off. It has some very ancient policing powers, complete with enforcement staff and options.
Any British person who attaches the coy and maudlin 'Great British' to anything from Cake to FishnChips to Allotments should be flogged and sent to Devil's Island permanently.
Sometimes I wonder if --- outside America, where it is a terminal disease --- any other nation exists which contrives to use language so frequently for disgusting self-promotion and self-congratulation in an orgy of advertisingspeak.
.
.
The logic of the Biden candidacy is a facsimile of our last memory of normalcy, like if Barack Obama were on vacation, or sick, maybe. Biden’s labors to remind us he was the understudy of the last president are painful. His launch speech contained 35 uses of the word “folks.” This included a rare double-folks (“Folks, I know some of the really smart folks say Democrats don’t want to hear about unity. . . .”). He constantly references the “Obama/Biden administration” and chides audiences that “we don’t say often enough as a party or a nation” that Obama was awesome.
Biden on the trail will spit out the campaign equivalent of clip art, e.g., “America, folks, is an idea, an idea that’s stronger than any army, bigger than any ocean,” or, “America has always been at its best when America has acted as one America.” By the end of the campaign, Biden will be plunked behind podiums to mutter, “America America America America America . . .” And we’ll vote for him.
Clown Car II: The Democrats. God help us.
Matt Taibbi
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iowa-2020-election-democrats-taibbi-858522/
I had to take my elderly mother for a hospital appointment yesterday. They quickly moved her out of the waiting room into an empty examination room to avoid her having to sit in front of the TV which was tuned to the BBC news channel. Apparently it's now a standard precaution with fragile patients to keep their blood pressure down.
I know there's something morbidly fascinating about our impending civil war, but, presuming you're not in a wheelchair being pushed up against a screen, you do have the option of looking away.
How much of the 200M is going to be spent on London buses and how much for the rest of the UK?
I was living in a rural location about 30 minutes travel from Chester for a while and they had 1 bus a day running from the village into Chester. And it used to arrive in Chester wait about 15 minutes and then go back. Meaning it was pretty useless unless you only wanted to go one way or wait a whole day before going back.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
