...(snip for length) 11. For brevity. Occam's razor
Yes, I think so too. But I think our response has been fumbled by overstatement (Boris being the obvious one) and we've used up a lot of diplomatic capital to achieve some who-cares sanctions over numbers of diplomats. If we were serious we'd take steps against Russian hot money in the City and boycott the World Cup, but we're not - instead we've encouraged a sort of phoney cold war where everyone shouts a lot. It's entirely typical that we're saying that we're very tempted not to send some *officials* to the World Cup - gosh.
Given that most of us think that Russia for some odd reason probably decided to engineer a high-profile assassination in Britain, a strong response is appropriate, but strong is not the same as noisy and fumbled.
Expelling diplomats is the standard practice. Legislation is being amended to go after the money.
It’s enough to take a public stance. It was needed after the pathetic way the government you supported behaved the last time Russia murdered someone in the U.K.
I agree with the Chief Constable. Calling yourself the Derbyshire Constabulary Choir implies you represent the Derbyshire Constabulary and therefore you should be representative of the organisation. If that's not possible, the problem is solved by changing your name. I don't think any of this is unreasonable.
Perhaps the problem was as a bunch of white middle-aged men they were somewhat too representative of the organisation?
There are plenty of mixed police choirs, probably the norm, like the fine Edinburgh Police Choir, which does include female and male serving officers.
Disregard the Boris-bashing if one wishes, but this is a really good article on the difficulty of our system in handling doubt even where there's 90% certainty:
I'd add that the media don't like doubt either, and seize on it.
The effect of that is that politicians who come to a decision on what's right then seek to "make a case", suppressing any reasons to think it might be wrong - Tony Blair and Iraq is the really obvious example. Legal training is a dangerous background in this, since the job of a lawyer is to make a case, not to present a balanced argument.
Disregard the Boris-bashing if one wishes, but this is a really good article on the difficulty of our system in handling doubt even where there's 90% certainty:
I'd add that the media don't like doubt either, and seize on it.
The effect of that is that politicians who come to a decision on what's right then seek to "make a case", suppressing any reasons to think it might be wrong - Tony Blair and Iraq is the really obvious example. Legal training is a dangerous background in this, since the job of a lawyer is to make a case, not to present a balanced argument.
There is always likely to be some doubt somewhere from someone, even criminals can be convicted provided the level of doubt is not 'reasonable doubt'
The lack of interest among Leave supporters in Leave’s failure to date to convince doubters and its so far clear outgunning among previous non-voters is startling. Of course demography isn’t inevitable. But people have to be given a clear reason to change their minds and Leave isn’t even trying to offer one at present. It’s just being assumed that it will somehow happen.
Status Quo bias is strong. Once the deed has been done by this time next year many of the less committed Remain supporters will support the status quo of Left.
That may be a little optimistic, after all Eurosceptic didn't melt to the joys of the EU over time.
We do know that the process if Leaving will be very prolonged, as nothing really changes during transition, and we do know that any FTA will take years longer. It seems unlikely that we will have the same government throughout.
Pessimistic, rather than optimistic, given my own views on the subject.
Euroscepticism grew slowly over many years because of a strong campaign. Changing opinions is hard. I see no evidence of my side of Remain taking any steps to advocate for the EU. The vote for Leave is still viewed as a temporary aberration against the normal order of things.
...(snip for length) 11. For brevity. Occam's razor
Yes, I think so too. But I think our response has been fumbled by overstatement (Boris being the obvious one) and we've used up a lot of diplomatic capital to achieve some who-cares sanctions over numbers of diplomats. If we were serious we'd take steps against Russian hot money in the City and boycott the World Cup, but we're not - instead we've encouraged a sort of phoney cold war where everyone shouts a lot. It's entirely typical that we're saying that we're very tempted not to send some *officials* to the World Cup - gosh.
Given that most of us think that Russia for some odd reason probably decided to engineer a high-profile assassination in Britain, a strong response is appropriate, but strong is not the same as noisy and fumbled.
Expelling diplomats is the standard practice. Legislation is being amended to go after the money.
It’s enough to take a public stance. It was needed after the pathetic way the government you supported behaved the last time Russia murdered someone in the U.K.
I think Nick’s response (echoing Corbyn/Labour) is also playing the Russian game. The proper response to the isolated incidents (Boris etc)is to double down on the Official Govt position - that Russia is the only plausible source of the attack. The important thing about the response so far is that it has been multilateral, that it has to some extent isolated Russia in the International community. Unilateral responses like boycotting the World Cup would serve nothing like the same purpose(assuming others wouldn’t follow) and would have far more of a negative effect on the U.K. than Russia. And sporting organisations detest being dragged into political arguments.
It is also a curious feature of the Labour position that they seem to be simultaneously accusing the Govt of taking Minor and ineffective measures whilst at the same time taking precipitate action and overreacting.
The lack of interest among Leave supporters in Leave’s failure to date to convince doubters and its so far clear outgunning among previous non-voters is startling. Of course demography isn’t inevitable. But people have to be given a clear reason to change their minds and Leave isn’t even trying to offer one at present. It’s just being assumed that it will somehow happen.
Yet again you fail to realise that Leave don't need to convince anyone to change their mind.
Leave have already achieved the biggest political upset in a generation by winning the EU referendum, it is Remainers who have to convince the public to reverse Brexit or at least stay in the single market and customs union by electing a government committed to do so and neither main party is even contemplating doing all they want at the moment let alone a second referendum.
An interesting article, but ultimately a counterfactual the nation won't be seeing any time soon. The never never out but eternally transitioning arrangement will be the status quo ante well past 2021 no matter how much Farage or Gina Miller dislikes it.
By 2021 we will have left the EU, the single market and customs union and ended free movement
An interesting article, but ultimately a counterfactual the nation won't be seeing any time soon. The never never out but eternally transitioning arrangement will be the status quo ante well past 2021 no matter how much Farage or Gina Miller dislikes it.
I’m totally done with Farage, and have been for some time.
The one thing I can’t stand is lack of patriotism and standing up for your own country, whether that comes from the hard-right or the hard-left.
He’s more interested in being Trump and Putin’s sockpuppet to indulge his ego and everything else comes second to that, including this country.
Maybe there are real political views sometimes but I do wonder if he has just come to love the attention more than anything else. The referendum should be his greatest achievement but he almost seems disappointed since.
I think he really wants the 'Brexit betrayal', he wants to continue fighting.
THAT poster in the Referendum campaign was all about him getting the attention.
But I've heard the same demographic arguments about why the Tories will never win a general election for the last 20 years.
Longer than that. Matthew Parris in the '80s wrote 'the Tories, to a man, or being Tories, pensioner...'
There is a potential counter to the demographic argument in that one argument for why it doesn’t work against the Tories in General Elections is that traditional Labour voters die off quicker. However in the context of the EU referendum this traditional dividing line didn’t exist - it was the traditional working class Labour voter that was arguably the strongest for Leave.
...(snip for length) 11. For brevity. Occam's razor
Yes, I think so too. But I think our response has been fumbled by overstatement (Boris being the obvious one) and we've used up a lot of diplomatic capital to achieve some who-cares sanctions over numbers of diplomats. If we were serious we'd take steps against Russian hot money in the City and boycott the World Cup, but we're not - instead we've encouraged a sort of phoney cold war where everyone shouts a lot. It's entirely typical that we're saying that we're very tempted not to send some *officials* to the World Cup - gosh.
Given that most of us think that Russia for some odd reason probably decided to engineer a high-profile assassination in Britain, a strong response is appropriate, but strong is not the same as noisy and fumbled.
Expelling diplomats is the standard practice. Legislation is being amended to go after the money.
It’s enough to take a public stance. It was needed after the pathetic way the government you supported behaved the last time Russia murdered someone in the U.K.
I think Nick’s response (echoing Corbyn/Labour) is also playing the Russian game. The proper response to the isolated incidents (Boris etc)is to double down on the Official Govt position - that Russia is the only plausible source of the attack. The important thing about the response so far is that it has been multilateral, that it has to some extent isolated Russia in the International community. Unilateral responses like boycotting the World Cup would serve nothing like the same purpose(assuming others wouldn’t follow) and would have far more of a negative effect on the U.K. than Russia. And sporting organisations detest being dragged into political arguments.
It is also a curious feature of the Labour position that they seem to be simultaneously accusing the Govt of taking Minor and ineffective measures whilst at the same time taking precipitate action and overreacting.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
...(snip for length) 11. For brevity. Occam's razor
Yes, I think so too. But I think our response has been fumbled by overstatement (Boris being the obvious one) and we've used up a lot of diplomatic capital to achieve some who-cares sanctions over numbers of diplomats. If we were serious we'd take steps against Russian hot money in the City and boycott the World Cup, but we're not - instead we've encouraged a sort of phoney cold war where everyone shouts a lot. It's entirely typical that we're saying that we're very tempted not to send some *officials* to the World Cup - gosh.
Given that most of us think that Russia for some odd reason probably decided to engineer a high-profile assassination in Britain, a strong response is appropriate, but strong is not the same as noisy and fumbled.
Expelling diplomats is the standard practice. Legislation is being amended to go after the money.
It’s enough to take a public stance. It was needed after the pathetic way the government you supported behaved the last time Russia murdered someone in the U.K.
I think Nick’s response (echoing Corbyn/Labour) is also playing the Russian game. The proper response to the isolated incidents (Boris etc)is to double down on the Official Govt position - that Russia is the only plausible source of the attack. The important thing about the response so far is that it has been multilateral, that it has to some extent isolated Russia in the International community. Unilateral responses like boycotting the World Cup would serve nothing like the same purpose(assuming others wouldn’t follow) and would have far more of a negative effect on the U.K. than Russia. And sporting organisations detest being dragged into political arguments.
It is also a curious feature of the Labour position that they seem to be simultaneously accusing the Govt of taking Minor and ineffective measures whilst at the same time taking precipitate action and overreacting.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
You want the opposition to challenge the Government by pushing the case that the Earth is flat? Sometimes just being contrary makes them look like pillocks. The Salisbury Poisonings is such a case.
Mr. Jonathan, our political class ought to unite on matters of national security. Instead, the Leader of the Opposition seems to trust a foreign state's authorities more than British ones.
An interesting article, but ultimately a counterfactual the nation won't be seeing any time soon. The never never out but eternally transitioning arrangement will be the status quo ante well past 2021 no matter how much Farage or Gina Miller dislikes it.
I sort of agree, but the status quo will need to be translated into a treaty and treaties deal with hard facts. You can't fudge them very much.
...(snip for length) 11. For brevity. Occam's razor
Yes, I think so too. But I think our response has been fumbled by overstatement (Boris being the obvious one) and we've used up a lot of diplomatic capital to achieve some who-cares sanctions over numbers of diplomats. If we were serious we'd take steps against Russian hot money in the City and boycott the World Cup, but we're not - instead we've encouraged a sort of phoney cold war where everyone shouts a lot. It's entirely typical that we're saying that we're very tempted not to send some *officials* to the World Cup - gosh.
Given that most of us think that Russia for some odd reason probably decided to engineer a high-profile assassination in Britain, a strong response is appropriate, but strong is not the same as noisy and fumbled.
Expelling diplomats is the standard practice. Legislation is being amended to go after the money.
It’s enough to take a public stance. It was needed after the pathetic way the government you supported behaved the last time Russia murdered someone in the U.K.
I think Nick’s response (echoing Corbyn/Labour) is also playing the Russian game. The proper response to the isolated incidents (Boris etc)is to double down on the Official Govt position - that Russia is the only plausible source of the attack. The important thing about the response so far is that it has been multilateral, that it has to some extent isolated Russia in the International community. Unilateral responses like boycotting the World Cup would serve nothing like the same purpose(assuming others wouldn’t follow) and would have far more of a negative effect on the U.K. than Russia. And sporting organisations detest being dragged into political arguments.
It is also a curious feature of the Labour position that they seem to be simultaneously accusing the Govt of taking Minor and ineffective measures whilst at the same time taking precipitate action and overreacting.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
Use Boris to attack Boris. Do not use Boris to attack/undermine the Govt’s position. We’ll just have to disagree about how ‘weak’ the response has been. My impression is that the Russians have been pretty surprised and rattled by the extent of that the international community has fallen in with Britain.
It doesn't need opinion to swing back to remain/rejoin for us to get back in. If a party wins a general election on a rejoin manifesto it can legitimately take us back in. If its manifesto commitment is to 'seek terms for re-entry and join if satisfactory ones can be obtained' it can easily argue that a referendum would make negotiations impossible. After all, that is one of the fundamental reasons we are having a rough time now. You can't really negotiate with no room for manouvre.
Not sure that really makes sense. The main problems with the current negotiation is that the decision to leave has been taken, and that there is an immovable deadline to leave. Aggravated by a body of opinion (in the UK and EU) that the original decision might be reversed if the terms aren't favourable to the UK (ie the country will opt for remaining in preference to a cliff edge).
It would be perfectly feasible for a future government to open negotiations to rejoin (if the EU looked favourable on the idea) subject to a referendum on the final agreement. I don't see how we could go back in without a referendum (and I think that the EU might even insist on one, with a super majority to ensure that the UK really is committed).
Once we're out it would be in nobody's interests to rejoin unless it really was the settled will to do so.
It's clearly and unambiguously in the country as whole's interest to rejoin.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
...(snip for length) 11. For brevity. Occam's razor
.
Expelling diplomats is the standard practice. Legislation is being amended to go after the money.
It’s enough to take a public stance. It was needed after the pathetic way the government you supported behaved the last time Russia murdered someone in the U.K.
I think Nick’s response (echoing Corbyn/Labour) is also playing the Russian game. The proper response to the isolated incidents (Boris etc)is to double down on the Official Govt position - that Russia is the only plausible source of the attack. The important thing about the response so far is that it has been multilateral, that it has to some extent isolated Russia in the International community. Unilateral responses like boycotting the World Cup would serve nothing like the same purpose(assuming others wouldn’t follow) and would have far more of a negative effect on the U.K. than Russia. And sporting organisations detest being dragged into political arguments.
It is also a curious feature of the Labour position that they seem to be simultaneously accusing the Govt of taking Minor and ineffective measures whilst at the same time taking precipitate action and overreacting.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
You want the opposition to challenge the Government by pushing the case that the Earth is flat? Sometimes just being contrary makes them look like pillocks. The Salisbury Poisonings is such a case.
The job of opposition should be to hold the government to account. It isn’t to blindly take the opposing view contrary to all the actual evidence.
It’s yet another part of the toxic legacy of Alistair Campbell and his dodgy dossier that some MPs (aided by a few useful idiots in the media) seem more determined to believe the Kermlin’s spin than the facts presented by our own side.
Mr. Jonathan, our political class ought to unite on matters of national security. Instead, the Leader of the Opposition seems to trust a foreign state's authorities more than British ones.
Boris is, as you imply, an utter cock.
Corbyn was never going to be gung ho or take government intelligence reports at face value. I think our democracy is robust enough to handle that.
I am not saying Corbyn didn't make mistakes, because he did. The politicisation of the issue was wrong amongst other things.
The Leader of the Opposition job is hard, you never win friends at times like this,but it's critical. In my opinion, no role in our constitution sets us apart more. Mustn't take it for granted.
O/t but the banner across the top of PB (on my computer anyway) refers to new homes in rural (-ish) Essex. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom homes, from £314,995
Doesn’t seem particularly ‘affordadable’!
That’s not a criticism of PB, of course!
Given that is in prime commuter belt in the home counties it is unlikely to be very affordable though for rural Essex £314 000 is pretty good value
£314,000 is the price of the cheapest one bedroom flat - certainly not cheap. The houses are probably from double that.
Thank heavens for help to buy - never has so much free money been transferred from the taxoayer to so few directors of major house builders.
I am amazed that every industry doesn't demand the government provide interest free loans guaranteed by the taxpayer to fund up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of their product. They could all increase turnover and profits by up to 40 per cent overnight for little effort and pay higher dividends and massive bonuses to their boards and executive directors.
It doesn't need opinion to swing back to remain/rejoin for us to get back in. If a party wins a general election on a rejoin manifesto it can legitimately take us back in. If its manifesto commitment is to 'seek terms for re-entry and join if satisfactory ones can be obtained' it can easily argue that a referendum would make negotiations impossible. After all, that is one of the fundamental reasons we are having a rough time now. You can't really negotiate with no room for manouvre.
Not sure that really makes sense. The main problems with the current negotiation is that the decision to leave has been taken, and that there is an immovable deadline to leave. Aggravated by a body of opinion (in the UK and EU) that the original decision might be reversed if the terms aren't favourable to the UK (ie the country will opt for remaining in preference to a cliff edge).
It would be perfectly feasible for a future government to open negotiations to rejoin (if the EU looked favourable on the idea) subject to a referendum on the final agreement. I don't see how we could go back in without a referendum (and I think that the EU might even insist on one, with a super majority to ensure that the UK really is committed).
Once we're out it would be in nobody's interests to rejoin unless it really was the settled will to do so.
It's clearly and unambiguously in the country as whole's interest to rejoin.
That is also true of Norway and Iceland but they show no sign of joining, even though most of their politicians would probably like to.
I think we should be wary of assuming that just because the vote to Leave was very narrow the movement to Rejoin will be strong. As I said last night, for most people most of the time Europe is a minor issue that bores them silly. Unless something radical happens to change that, I cannot see us rejoining.
It doesn't need opinion to swing back to remain/rejoin for us to get back in. If a party wins a general election on a rejoin manifesto it can legitimately take us back in. If its manifesto commitment is to 'seek terms for re-entry and join if satisfactory ones can be obtained' it can easily argue that a referendum would make negotiations impossible. After all, that is one of the fundamental reasons we are having a rough time now. You can't really negotiate with no room for manouvre.
Not sure that really makes sense. The main problems with the current negotiation is that the decision to leave has been taken, and that there is an immovable deadline to leave. Aggravated by a body of opinion (in the UK and EU) that the original decision might be reversed if the terms aren't favourable to the UK (ie the country will opt for remaining in preference to a cliff edge).
It would be perfectly feasible for a future government to open negotiations to rejoin (if the EU looked favourable on the idea) subject to a referendum on the final agreement. I don't see how we could go back in without a referendum (and I think that the EU might even insist on one, with a super majority to ensure that the UK really is committed).
Once we're out it would be in nobody's interests to rejoin unless it really was the settled will to do so.
It's clearly and unambiguously in the country as whole's interest to rejoin.
What, regardless of the terms (Euro et al)and with the possibility that we might opt to leave again with a small shift in the political winds? Sometimes theoretical economic benefits aren’t worth much if they come with ongoing political instability.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
There's also the simple but rather compelling point, made I think by @MarqueeMark, that the stuff is called novichok. Not all vodka comes from Russia, but it did before vodka went mass market.
I think we should be wary of assuming that just because the vote to Leave was very narrow the movement to Rejoin will be strong. As I said last night, for most people most of the time Europe is a minor issue that bores them silly. Unless something radical happens to change that, I cannot see us rejoining.
The question really is at what point and in what way would the concensus evolve that leaving the EU was a mistake ?
It can't be now because we haven't left yet and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that life outside the EU has to be "given a chance" but there's no clock on that - 5 years, 20 years, 50 years ?
I see no quantifiable measures to determine the success or failure but even without those we can't ignore either a) possible global economic changes and their impact on the UK and b) any changes in the EU and those impacts.
The only constant is change. To say "we will never re-join" is therefore foolish. The question is whether if or when it becomes clear it is in our national interests to seek to return to the EU whether there will be any political leader brave enough to accept it, tell the UK public the truth and seek the best terms possible for our re-admission.
O/t but the banner across the top of PB (on my computer anyway) refers to new homes in rural (-ish) Essex. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom homes, from £314,995
Doesn’t seem particularly ‘affordadable’!
That’s not a criticism of PB, of course!
For £314,000 you could buy two, possibly three, three bedroom houses in Cannock.
Or 2 in Leicester, despite our migrant population...
Yes, but why would you want to?
(My line manager is a supporter of Leicester City. If he finds out I said that, I'm going to find myself on permanent timetabling duties come the summer!)
I found the reactions of the two Corbynistas I know to recent events interesting. On the anti-Semitism charge, they are confidently defensive. It's all fluff anyway and his generally anti-racist stance provides a shield.
But on the Kremlin-stooge charge, they go very quiet. They are both in their fifties so that might account for it, but 'useful idiot' does ring true.
Ask them "Who else do you think did it, then?" and they try to change the subject. Very telling
It doesn't need opinion to swing back to remain/rejoin for us to get back in. If a party wins a general election on a rejoin manifesto it can legitimately take us back in. If its manifesto commitment is to 'seek terms for re-entry and join if satisfactory ones can be obtained' it can easily argue that a referendum would make negotiations impossible. After all, that is one of the fundamental reasons we are having a rough time now. You can't really negotiate with no room for manouvre.
Not sure that really makes sense. The main problems with the current negotiation is that the decision to leave has been taken, and that there is an immovable deadline to leave. Aggravated by a body of opinion (in the UK and EU) that the original decision might be reversed if the terms aren't favourable to the UK (ie the country will opt for remaining in preference to a cliff edge).
It would be perfectly feasible for a future government to open negotiations to rejoin (if the EU looked favourable on the idea) subject to a referendum on the final agreement. I don't see how we could go back in without a referendum (and I think that the EU might even insist on one, with a super majority to ensure that the UK really is committed).
Once we're out it would be in nobody's interests to rejoin unless it really was the settled will to do so.
It's clearly and unambiguously in the country as whole's interest to rejoin.
That is also true of Norway and Iceland but they show no sign of joining, even though most of their politicians would probably like to.
I think we should be wary of assuming that just because the vote to Leave was very narrow the movement to Rejoin will be strong. As I said last night, for most people most of the time Europe is a minor issue that bores them silly. Unless something radical happens to change that, I cannot see us rejoining.
Exactly. You trade your influence for the symbolism of being independent. Everything else stays the same. I am not sure being told what to do is going to sit well with us long term. We're not Norway and happy to outsource a large part of our foreign and trade relations to third parties. Short to medium term we need to move on and we'rebored with the subject.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
My bold.
I could support that stance if the Russians also agreed to hand back the nukes they took as part of the original deal. I can't see Russia voluntarily creating another nuclear armed country however, especially right on their doorstep.
It doesn't need opinion to swing back to remain/rejoin for us to get back in. If a party wins a general election on a rejoin manifesto it can legitimately take us back in. If its manifesto commitment is to 'seek terms for re-entry and join if satisfactory ones can be obtained' it can easily argue that a referendum would make negotiations impossible. After all, that is one of the fundamental reasons we are having a rough time now. You can't really negotiate with no room for manouvre.
Not sure that really makes sense. The main problems with the current negotiation is that the decision to leave has been taken, and that there is an immovable deadline to leave. Aggravated by a body of opinion (in the UK and EU) that the original decision might be reversed if the terms aren't favourable to the UK (ie the country will opt for remaining in preference to a cliff edge).
It would be perfectly feasible for a future government to open negotiations to rejoin (if the EU looked favourable on the idea) subject to a referendum on the final agreement. I don't see how we could go back in without a referendum (and I think that the EU might even insist on one, with a super majority to ensure that the UK really is committed).
Once we're out it would be in nobody's interests to rejoin unless it really was the settled will to do so.
It's clearly and unambiguously in the country as whole's interest to rejoin.
I would agree, however the 2 obstacles to rejoin are quite considerable: getting the British public to agree and secondly, getting the EU27+ to agree.
The latter may well be the harder task, after all any country could veto us, and the French have form in doing so twice. New nations joining would have that possibility too. We could be blackballed by Albania or Ukraine.
I think we should be wary of assuming that just because the vote to Leave was very narrow the movement to Rejoin will be strong. As I said last night, for most people most of the time Europe is a minor issue that bores them silly. Unless something radical happens to change that, I cannot see us rejoining.
The question really is at what point and in what way would the concensus evolve that leaving the EU was a mistake ?
It can't be now because we haven't left yet and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that life outside the EU has to be "given a chance" but there's no clock on that - 5 years, 20 years, 50 years ?
I see no quantifiable measures to determine the success or failure but even without those we can't ignore either a) possible global economic changes and their impact on the UK and b) any changes in the EU and those impacts.
The only constant is change. To say "we will never re-join" is therefore foolish. The question is whether if or when it becomes clear it is in our national interests to seek to return to the EU whether there will be any political leader brave enough to accept it, tell the UK public the truth and seek the best terms possible for our re-admission.
Again, it's not whether 'leaving the EU' is seen as a mistake. It's whether 'continuing to stay outside it' is seen as the wrong choice.
Even if people come to feel that what we are doing now is wrong, it's effectively irrevocable. The status quo ante (which was a reasonable although in many ways imperfect scenario) is not an option any more. Therefore rejoining what amounts to a federal superstate will have to be seen as the preferable option.
I have to say I think it will be a long time and require vast economic damage - plus equally vast reforms in the EU itself - before that is seen as a better option than even the semi-detached vassal status permanent transition would lead to.
Exactly. You trade your influence for the symbolism of being independent. Everything else stays the same. I am not sure being told what to do is going to sit well with us long term. We're not Norway and happy to outsource a large part of our foreign and trade relations to third parties. Short to medium term we need to move on and we'rebored with the subject.
That may depend a little bit on whether we stay fully aligned, or whether we take advantage of looser ties to loosen them further over time (a la Michael Collins and the Irish governments of Cosgrave and de Valera).
That will also depend on what governments we elect and what economic options we follow.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
What seems to be being missed is that however repellent attempting to assassinate someone in a British town it will always be tempered by the fact that he was a spy. Had it been a British spy in St Petersberg I wonder how outraged we would be?
I particularly wonder what our attitude would be to Corbyn if he attacked our own government for possibly being behind it.
Some of us remember Maggie's 'Death on the Rock'. Political assasinations are not confined to Russia. Ask our allies in the Middle East.
I think we should be wary of assuming that just because the vote to Leave was very narrow the movement to Rejoin will be strong. As I said last night, for most people most of the time Europe is a minor issue that bores them silly. Unless something radical happens to change that, I cannot see us rejoining.
The question really is at what point and in what way would the concensus evolve that leaving the EU was a mistake ?
It can't be now because we haven't left yet and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that life outside the EU has to be "given a chance" but there's no clock on that - 5 years, 20 years, 50 years ?
I see no quantifiable measures to determine the success or failure but even without those we can't ignore either a) possible global economic changes and their impact on the UK and b) any changes in the EU and those impacts.
The only constant is change. To say "we will never re-join" is therefore foolish. The question is whether if or when it becomes clear it is in our national interests to seek to return to the EU whether there will be any political leader brave enough to accept it, tell the UK public the truth and seek the best terms possible for our re-admission.
Again, it's not whether 'leaving the EU' is seen as a mistake. It's whether 'continuing to stay outside it' is seen as the wrong choice.
Even if people come to feel that what we are doing now is wrong, it's effectively irrevocable. The status quo ante (which was a reasonable although in many ways imperfect scenario) is not an option any more. Therefore rejoining what amounts to a federal superstate will have to be seen as the preferable option.
I have to say I think it will be a long time and require vast economic damage - plus equally vast reforms in the EU itself - before that is seen as a better option than even the semi-detached vassal status permanent transition would lead to.
It is increasingly clear that we are headed to BINO, which is probably the least damaging outcome economically and socially. I suspect most will be happy with vassal state status, after all the EU is a benevolent organisatiion and very few Brexiteers can come up with an EU rule or regulation that oppresses us.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
There's also the simple but rather compelling point, made I think by @MarqueeMark, that the stuff is called novichok. Not all vodka comes from Russia, but it did before vodka went mass market.
On the basis of the constant use of the term 'military grade novichok' by dumbo pols and hacks, the implication is that there's domestic use stuff (ideal for killing the neighbours' cat and giving them the squits presumably). Perhaps novichok has gone mass market.
Mind you, the military grade stuff doesn't seem to be entirely effective against enemies of the state. Perhaps the perpetrators bought the wrong stuff.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
What seems to be being missed is that however repellent attempting to assassinate someone in a British town it will always be tempered by the fact that he was a spy. Had it been a British spy in St Petersberg I wonder how outraged we would be?
I particularly wonder what our attitude would be to Corbyn if he attacked our own government for possibly being behind it.
Some of us remember Maggie's 'Death on the Rock'. Political assasinations are not confined to Russia. Ask our allies in the Middle East.
...(snip for length) 11. For brevity. Occam's razor
.
Expelling diplomats is the standard practice. Legislation is being amended to go after the money.
It’s enough to take a public stance. It was needed after the pathetic way the government you supported behaved the last time Russia murdered someone in the U.K.
I think Nick’s response (echoing Corbyn/Labour) is also playing the Russian game. The proper response to the isolated incidents (Boris etc)is to double down on the Official Govt position - that Russia is the only plausible source of the attack. The important thing about the response so far is that it has been multilateral, that it has to some extent isolated Russia in the International community. Unilateral responses like boycotting the World Cup would serve nothing like the same purpose(assuming others wouldn’t follow) and would have far more of a negative effect on the U.K. than Russia. And sporting organisations detest being dragged into political arguments.
It is also a curious feature of the Labour position that they seem to be simultaneously accusing the Govt of taking Minor and ineffective measures whilst at the same time taking precipitate action and overreacting.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
You want the opposition to challenge the Government by pushing the case that the Earth is flat? Sometimes just being contrary makes them look like pillocks. The Salisbury Poisonings is such a case.
The job of opposition should be to hold the government to account. It isn’t to blindly take the opposing view contrary to all the actual evidence.
It’s yet another part of the toxic legacy of Alistair Campbell and his dodgy dossier that some MPs (aided by a few useful idiots in the media) seem more determined to believe the Kermlin’s spin than the facts presented by our own side.
The media have come out of the aftermath of Salisbury looking like total tools. I don't recall a massive soul-searching after the Manchester bombing. "What if it wasn't an ISIS suicide bomb? What if it was an MI5 false flag operation?". They have done journalism no favours by engaging in looking for all the angles where we could possibly have been complicit. However bat-shit crazy the idea - and by extension, they - look.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
What seems to be being missed is that however repellent attempting to assassinate someone in a British town it will always be tempered by the fact that he was a spy. Had it been a British spy in St Petersberg I wonder how outraged we would be?
I particularly wonder what our attitude would be to Corbyn if he attacked our own government for possibly being behind it.
Some of us remember Maggie's 'Death on the Rock'. Political assasinations are not confined to Russia. Ask our allies in the Middle East.
It seems to me that if we accept anyone as a citizen, we implicitly guarantee their safety, same as every other citizen. We knew he was a *former* spy when we accepted him. But anyway the policeman and the daughter prevent the point from really arising.
Dr. Foxy/Mr. Roger, you're not concerned by the use of chemical weaponry in Salisbury? Even if you take a cold, pragmatic view of things (assassinations happen etc), the use of such weapons is reckless to the point of idiocy.
Mr. Mark, indeed. ITV and Paul Brand in particular were a small step away from Pravda bullshit when it came to their reporting a couple of nights ago.
O/t but the banner across the top of PB (on my computer anyway) refers to new homes in rural (-ish) Essex. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom homes, from £314,995
Doesn’t seem particularly ‘affordadable’!
That’s not a criticism of PB, of course!
Given that is in prime commuter belt in the home counties it is unlikely to be very affordable though for rural Essex £314 000 is pretty good value
£314,000 is the price of the cheapest one bedroom flat - certainly not cheap. The houses are probably from double that.
Thank heavens for help to buy - never has so much free money been transferred from the taxoayer to so few directors of major house builders.
I am amazed that every industry doesn't demand the government provide interest free loans guaranteed by the taxpayer to fund up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of their product. They could all increase turnover and profits by up to 40 per cent overnight for little effort and pay higher dividends and massive bonuses to their boards and executive directors.
As usual the government is attacked for high house prices and housing unaffordability then when it tries to do something about that eg help to buy, ending stamp duty for purchases under £300k, ending free movement this reducing demand etc it is attacked for that too and when more houses are proposed the LDs and residents associations etc go all NIMBY
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
What seems to be being missed is that however repellent attempting to assassinate someone in a British town it will always be tempered by the fact that he was a spy. Had it been a British spy in St Petersberg I wonder how outraged we would be?
I particularly wonder what our attitude would be to Corbyn if he attacked our own government for possibly being behind it.
Some of us remember Maggie's 'Death on the Rock'. Political assasinations are not confined to Russia. Ask our allies in the Middle East.
Indeed, our most noted spy is licensed to kill.
...and there were at least six of them I can name. Connery Lazenby Moore Dalton Brosnan and Craig
I found the reactions of the two Corbynistas I know to recent events interesting. On the anti-Semitism charge, they are confidently defensive. It's all fluff anyway and his generally anti-racist stance provides a shield.
But on the Kremlin-stooge charge, they go very quiet. They are both in their fifties so that might account for it, but 'useful idiot' does ring true.
Ask them "Who else do you think did it, then?" and they try to change the subject. Very telling
Good point. Corbyn is very weak on national security. If I were a Conservative I'd keep all my powder dry for that issue and that issue alone. As it is, the constant barage of criticism means that nobody pays any attention to any of it.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
What seems to be being missed is that however repellent attempting to assassinate someone in a British town it will always be tempered by the fact that he was a spy. Had it been a British spy in St Petersberg I wonder how outraged we would be?
I particularly wonder what our attitude would be to Corbyn if he attacked our own government for possibly being behind it.
Some of us remember Maggie's 'Death on the Rock'. Political assasinations are not confined to Russia. Ask our allies in the Middle East.
Indeed, our most noted spy is licensed to kill.
...and there were at least six of them I can name. Connery Lazenby Moore Dalton Brosnan and Craig
O/t but the banner across the top of PB (on my computer anyway) refers to new homes in rural (-ish) Essex. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom homes, from £314,995
Doesn’t seem particularly ‘affordadable’!
That’s not a criticism of PB, of course!
Given that is in prime commuter belt in the home counties it is unlikely to be very affordable though for rural Essex £314 000 is pretty good value
£314,000 is the price of the cheapest one bedroom flat - certainly not cheap. The houses are probably from double that.
Thank heavens for help to buy - never has so much free money been transferred from the taxoayer to so few directors of major house builders.
I am amazed that every industry doesn't demand the government provide interest free loans guaranteed by the taxpayer to fund up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of their product. They could all increase turnover and profits by up to 40 per cent overnight for little effort and pay higher dividends and massive bonuses to their boards and executive directors.
As usual the government is attacked for high house prices and housing unaffordability then when it tries to do something about that eg help to buy, ending stamp duty for purchases under £300k, ending free movement this reducing demand etc it is attacked for that too and when more houses are proposed the LDs and residents associations etc go all NIMBY
Yup. And those who are attracting the votes of young Londoners are promoting unlimited immigration and bashing the banks who would provide mortgages for all these priced-out first time buyers.
I'm afraid the 'Who cares, he was only a Russian spy' claim is missing the point. Jezza instinctively sides with anyone who is hostile to the UK, and that is why it will hurt him.
There's scholarly doubt and there's common sense. When you suspend the latter to make a political point, you lose sympathy.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
What seems to be being missed is that however repellent attempting to assassinate someone in a British town it will always be tempered by the fact that he was a spy. Had it been a British spy in St Petersberg I wonder how outraged we would be?
I particularly wonder what our attitude would be to Corbyn if he attacked our own government for possibly being behind it.
Some of us remember Maggie's 'Death on the Rock'. Political assasinations are not confined to Russia. Ask our allies in the Middle East.
Indeed, our most noted spy is licensed to kill.
...and there were at least six of them I can name. Connery Lazenby Moore Dalton Brosnan and Craig
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
There's also the simple but rather compelling point, made I think by @MarqueeMark, that the stuff is called novichok. Not all vodka comes from Russia, but it did before vodka went mass market.
On the basis of the constant use of the term 'military grade novichok' by dumbo pols and hacks, the implication is that there's domestic use stuff (ideal for killing the neighbours' cat and giving them the squits presumably). Perhaps novichok has gone mass market.
Mind you, the military grade stuff doesn't seem to be entirely effective against enemies of the state. Perhaps the perpetrators bought the wrong stuff.
Nobody talks about 'military grade Novichok' they talk about 'military grade nerve agents' as opposed to garden varieties or home brewed Sarin.
O/t but the banner across the top of PB (on my computer anyway) refers to new homes in rural (-ish) Essex. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom homes, from £314,995
Doesn’t seem particularly ‘affordadable’!
That’s not a criticism of PB, of course!
Given that is in prime commuter belt in the home counties it is unlikely to be very affordable though for rural Essex £314 000 is pretty good value
£314,000 is the price of the cheapest one bedroom flat - certainly not cheap. The houses are probably from double that.
Thank heavens for help to buy - never has so much free money been transferred from the taxoayer to so few directors of major house builders.
I am amazed that every industry doesn't demand the government provide interest free loans guaranteed by the taxpayer to fund up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of their product. They could all increase turnover and profits by up to 40 per cent overnight for little effort and pay higher dividends and massive bonuses to their boards and executive directors.
As usual the government is attacked for high house prices and housing unaffordability then when it tries to do something about that eg help to buy, ending stamp duty for purchases under £300k, ending free movement this reducing demand etc it is attacked for that too and when more houses are proposed the LDs and residents associations etc go all NIMBY
Yup. And those who are attracting the votes of young Londoners are promoting unlimited immigration and bashing the banks who would provide mortgages for all these priced-out first time buyers.
Left wing views on capitalism go somewhat against the grain of the consumerist aspiration society that we live in. Which is why I don't fear the 'youthquake' unless we don't get a grip on building lots and lots of houses, or don't further discourage BTLism.
O/t but the banner across the top of PB (on my computer anyway) refers to new homes in rural (-ish) Essex. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 bedroom homes, from £314,995
Doesn’t seem particularly ‘affordadable’!
That’s not a criticism of PB, of course!
Given that is in prime commuter belt in the home counties it is unlikely to be very affordable though for rural Essex £314 000 is pretty good value
£314,000 is the price of the cheapest one bedroom flat - certainly not cheap. The houses are probably from double that.
Thank heavens for help to buy - never has so much free money been transferred from the taxoayer to so few directors of major house builders.
I am amazed that every industry doesn't demand the government provide interest free loans guaranteed by the taxpayer to fund up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of their product. They could all increase turnover and profits by up to 40 per cent overnight for little effort and pay higher dividends and massive bonuses to their boards and executive directors.
As usual the government is attacked for high house prices and housing unaffordability then when it tries to do something about that eg help to buy, ending stamp duty for purchases under £300k, ending free movement this reducing demand etc it is attacked for that too and when more houses are proposed the LDs and residents associations etc go all NIMBY
Yup. And those who are attracting the votes of young Londoners are promoting unlimited immigration and bashing the banks who would provide mortgages for all these priced-out first time buyers.
I think we should be wary of assuming that just because the vote to Leave was very narrow the movement to Rejoin will be strong. As I said last night, for most people most of the time Europe is a minor issue that bores them silly. Unless something radical happens to change that, I cannot see us rejoining.
We won't go back in with a bang but with a whimper; one association agreement at a time until we eventually end up as members again but on far worse terms than we enjoy now. The demographics aren't everything but enough of the Coalition of the Decrepit and Deluded will have gone to the Great Daily Mail Comments Section in the Sky will mean that there will be insufficient political heft to contest the re-assimilation.
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
There's also the simple but rather compelling point, made I think by @MarqueeMark, that the stuff is called novichok. Not all vodka comes from Russia, but it did before vodka went mass market.
On the basis of the constant use of the term 'military grade novichok' by dumbo pols and hacks, the implication is that there's domestic use stuff (ideal for killing the neighbours' cat and giving them the squits presumably). Perhaps novichok has gone mass market.
Mind you, the military grade stuff doesn't seem to be entirely effective against enemies of the state. Perhaps the perpetrators bought the wrong stuff.
Nobody talks about 'military grade Novichok' they talk about 'military grade nerve agents' as opposed to garden varieties or home brewed Sarin.
'Gary Aitkenhead, the chief executive of the government’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), said the poison had been identified as a military-grade novichok nerve agent, which could probably be deployed only by a nation state.'
The opposition are challenging the government. That's a good thing. The sort of thing that doesn't happen in Russia. Boris’ embarrassing hyperbole needs to be challenged, as does the relatively weak action the government is taking behind it.
(1) The Skripals were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent. Not even Jeremy Corbyn disputes this. Porton Down was able to identify the agent unambiguously.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
There's also the simple but rather compelling point, made I think by @MarqueeMark, that the stuff is called novichok. Not all vodka comes from Russia, but it did before vodka went mass market.
On the basis of the constant use of the term 'military grade novichok' by dumbo pols and hacks, the implication is that there's domestic use stuff (ideal for killing the neighbours' cat and giving them the squits presumably). Perhaps novichok has gone mass market.
Mind you, the military grade stuff doesn't seem to be entirely effective against enemies of the state. Perhaps the perpetrators bought the wrong stuff.
Nobody talks about 'military grade Novichok' they talk about 'military grade nerve agents' as opposed to garden varieties or home brewed Sarin.
'Gary Aitkenhead, the chief executive of the government’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), said the poison had been identified as a military-grade novichok nerve agent, which could probably be deployed only by a nation state.'
That's a transcription error by whichever source you've copied it from - listen to the original broadcast and he says 'military grade nerve agent'
I think we should be wary of assuming that just because the vote to Leave was very narrow the movement to Rejoin will be strong. As I said last night, for most people most of the time Europe is a minor issue that bores them silly. Unless something radical happens to change that, I cannot see us rejoining.
We won't go back in with a bang but with a whimper; one association agreement at a time until we eventually end up as members again but on far worse terms than we enjoy now. The demographics aren't everything but enough of the Coalition of the Decrepit and Deluded will have gone to the Great Daily Mail Comments Section in the Sky will mean that there will be insufficient political heft to contest the re-assimilation.
Deluded is definitely the perfect description for the die hard Remaniacs.
And as they get older a significant portion of this young Remain voters will change their opinions enough that they won't support a return to the EU.
Comments
Mr. 43, some music is designed with male (or female) voices in mind.
It’s enough to take a public stance. It was needed after the pathetic way the government you supported behaved the last time Russia murdered someone in the U.K.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/05/boris-johnson-intelligence-skripal-poisoning-security
I'd add that the media don't like doubt either, and seize on it.
The effect of that is that politicians who come to a decision on what's right then seek to "make a case", suppressing any reasons to think it might be wrong - Tony Blair and Iraq is the really obvious example. Legal training is a dangerous background in this, since the job of a lawyer is to make a case, not to present a balanced argument.
Euroscepticism grew slowly over many years because of a strong campaign. Changing opinions is hard. I see no evidence of my side of Remain taking any steps to advocate for the EU. The vote for Leave is still viewed as a temporary aberration against the normal order of things.
It is also a curious feature of the Labour position that they seem to be simultaneously accusing the Govt of taking Minor and ineffective measures whilst at the same time taking precipitate action and overreacting.
Leave have already achieved the biggest political upset in a generation by winning the EU referendum, it is Remainers who have to convince the public to reverse Brexit or at least stay in the single market and customs union by electing a government committed to do so and neither main party is even contemplating doing all they want at the moment let alone a second referendum.
Doesn’t seem particularly ‘affordadable’!
That’s not a criticism of PB, of course!
Boris is, as you imply, an utter cock.
(2) Novichok is a complex agent, difficult to manufacture without the resources of a nation state at your disposal. It was originally developed by the Soviet Union. No other state besides Russia is known to have the capacity to manufacture it.
(3) Therefore the Novichok used on the Skripals must have been deployed either (i) by Russia, or (ii) by another country with whom Russia had willingly shared it, or (iii) by a country [or NGO such as the Mafia] who had stolen it from Russia without the Russians’ knowledge.
(4) In any or all of these cases, the Russians are either guilty, complicit or incompetent.
It seems to me that Boris-hatred has outweighed any resemblance of commons sense.
For the record, I am a Russia-phile. For example, I support Russia's position on the Crimea, though agree it might've been better to demonstrate that the population wish to belong to Russia by plebiscite.
It’s yet another part of the toxic legacy of Alistair Campbell and his dodgy dossier that some MPs (aided by a few useful idiots in the media) seem more determined to believe the Kermlin’s spin than the facts presented by our own side.
I am not saying Corbyn didn't make mistakes, because he did. The politicisation of the issue was wrong amongst other things.
The Leader of the Opposition job is hard, you never win friends at times like this,but it's critical. In my opinion, no role in our constitution sets us apart more. Mustn't take it for granted.
£314,000 is the price of the cheapest one bedroom flat - certainly not cheap. The houses are probably from double that.
Thank heavens for help to buy - never has so much free money been transferred from the taxoayer to so few directors of major house builders.
I am amazed that every industry doesn't demand the government provide interest free loans guaranteed by the taxpayer to fund up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of their product. They could all increase turnover and profits by up to 40 per cent overnight for little effort and pay higher dividends and massive bonuses to their boards and executive directors.
I think we should be wary of assuming that just because the vote to Leave was very narrow the movement to Rejoin will be strong. As I said last night, for most people most of the time Europe is a minor issue that bores them silly. Unless something radical happens to change that, I cannot see us rejoining.
https://twitter.com/CorbynSuperFan/status/982144122684256256
It can't be now because we haven't left yet and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that life outside the EU has to be "given a chance" but there's no clock on that - 5 years, 20 years, 50 years ?
I see no quantifiable measures to determine the success or failure but even without those we can't ignore either a) possible global economic changes and their impact on the UK and b) any changes in the EU and those impacts.
The only constant is change. To say "we will never re-join" is therefore foolish. The question is whether if or when it becomes clear it is in our national interests to seek to return to the EU whether there will be any political leader brave enough to accept it, tell the UK public the truth and seek the best terms possible for our re-admission.
(My line manager is a supporter of Leicester City. If he finds out I said that, I'm going to find myself on permanent timetabling duties come the summer!)
But on the Kremlin-stooge charge, they go very quiet. They are both in their fifties so that might account for it, but 'useful idiot' does ring true.
Ask them "Who else do you think did it, then?" and they try to change the subject. Very telling
I could support that stance if the Russians also agreed to hand back the nukes they took as part of the original deal. I can't see Russia voluntarily creating another nuclear armed country however, especially right on their doorstep.
The latter may well be the harder task, after all any country could veto us, and the French have form in doing so twice. New nations joining would have that possibility too. We could be blackballed by Albania or Ukraine.
Even if people come to feel that what we are doing now is wrong, it's effectively irrevocable. The status quo ante (which was a reasonable although in many ways imperfect scenario) is not an option any more. Therefore rejoining what amounts to a federal superstate will have to be seen as the preferable option.
I have to say I think it will be a long time and require vast economic damage - plus equally vast reforms in the EU itself - before that is seen as a better option than even the semi-detached vassal status permanent transition would lead to.
That will also depend on what governments we elect and what economic options we follow.
I particularly wonder what our attitude would be to Corbyn if he attacked our own government for possibly being behind it.
Some of us remember Maggie's 'Death on the Rock'. Political assasinations are not confined to Russia. Ask our allies in the Middle East.
Mind you, the military grade stuff doesn't seem to be entirely effective against enemies of the state. Perhaps the perpetrators bought the wrong stuff.
Mr. Mark, indeed. ITV and Paul Brand in particular were a small step away from Pravda bullshit when it came to their reporting a couple of nights ago.
Interesting how exercised so many Remainers on here's were last night, in that case.
Confirmation bias continues for so many who were on the losing side of the Refetendum.
I'm afraid the 'Who cares, he was only a Russian spy' claim is missing the point. Jezza instinctively sides with anyone who is hostile to the UK, and that is why it will hurt him.
There's scholarly doubt and there's common sense. When you suspend the latter to make a political point, you lose sympathy.
NEW THREAD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R23AQAFvZ-4
And as they get older a significant portion of this young Remain voters will change their opinions enough that they won't support a return to the EU.