Thursday 8th December 2016

Post by **refitman** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 7:11 am

Morning all.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 8:16 am

Morning All

Sorry I seem to have become something of a Brexit geek on here, but I've just been reading about Keir Starmer's "five tests" (now what does that remind me of?) of the published "Plan". Interestingly, Starmer has brought Hilary Benn to the fore in deciding Labour's response. See test two below:

Does it answers key questions such as whether the UK will seek to remain within the customs union and the EU single market?
Does it give enough detail for MPs, including on the Brexit select committee chaired by Hilary Benn, to scrutinise the government’s approach?
Does it provide enough information for the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to make detailed economic forecasts?
Will it address the concerns of the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales?
Does it “have enough detail to build genuine consensus”?

Benn was followed in the Debate by Ken Clarke, who opened like this:

It gives me pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It shows the odd situation we are in that I can say I agreed with every word he uttered. It might be a long time before either of us finds ourselves in that situation on any other subject, but then this is unlike any decision that has come to the House for many years.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 8:38 am

The fourth test is also interesting, because it presumably implies that Labour will be consulting with the SNP.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 8:56 am

Morning, I listened to some of the debate yesterday & think at some stage Keir Starmer asked the minister responsible to confirm that MPs would have the right to vote on whether to accept the article 50 final withdrawal agreement , reason being that MEPs would already be doing so.
Sorry for being vague & think I may have misheard/ misunderstood, but thought that was quite a major concession?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 8:57 am

Good morfternoon.

Back to "Brexit" -

Hasn't Labour now put itself in danger of being considered to be catching up with public opinion when the tide turns against "Brexit" (as I believe it will)? It will have lost the initiative (assuming it ever wanted it).

Edited to add - the already pro-"Inners" plus the probable future rueful "Outers" will equal a sizeable and important chunk of the electorate.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:01 am

Morning all. Busy day at school today so not around long.

About yesterday...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 2h2 hours ago

The debate has advanced from "Red, White and Blue" to the promise of a plan and a chance to scrutinise it. Neither was previously offered.

and this.

Law and policy ‏@Law_and_policy 2h2 hours ago

Law and policy Retweeted John Rentoul

Nicely done by @Keir_Starmer and his front bench colleagues.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:04 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The fourth test is also interesting, because it presumably implies that Labour will be consulting with the SNP.

The 5 tests were good and the original Labour motion asking for a plan was fine, but why didn't Labour join the SNP and Ken Clarke in rejecting the government's arbitrary timetable? Someone yesterday (AAW?) asked if the government had ever given a reason as to why article 50 has to be triggered in March. It's a good question.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:16 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The fourth test is also interesting, because it presumably implies that Labour will be consulting with the SNP.

...but not NI, which is a much bigger problem than Scotland and Wales?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:17 am

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... gures-show" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour and an early-years charity have expressed alarm after government figures showed that 156 Sure Start children’s centres closed in England in 2015, almost double the number which shut the previous year.

The huge scale of cuts to local council funding will get increasingly difficult to hide as more and more people face the reality of Osborne's hack and slash austerity measures, but will voters blame central government or even their local council or will they blame lack of services on immigrants and continue to agitate for a hard Brexit? And does hopes of the latter being the case encourage May to pursue a hard Brexit, knowing she can keep on promising everything will be fine a few years down the line when Brexit is complete, rather than allow the truth that underfunding rather than immigration is to blame for dwindling services to become more widely understood among voters?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:25 am

Eric_WLothian wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The fourth test is also interesting, because it presumably implies that Labour will be consulting with the SNP.
...but not NI, which is a much bigger problem than Scotland and Wales?

Yes that's a bit odd isn't it?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:27 am

Morning all.

Northampton and it's 'new' stand funding looks like its not going away. What chance the MP will have to stand down, unlikely?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:28 am

Eric_WLothian wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The fourth test is also interesting, because it presumably implies that Labour will be consulting with the SNP.
...but not NI, which is a much bigger problem than Scotland and Wales?

Great big 'doh!' moment there unless deliberately done due to diplomatic sensitivity reasons (i.e. Labour's including NI a rude presumption).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:28 am

Good-morning, everyone.

Post by **adam** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:29 am

Daily politics in the graun opens with news of Labour launching into policy discussion about how they've got immigration policy wrong and what needs to change...

...without mentioning one very obvious thing that needs to change - we need to stop pretending that we can have something from the EU that has simply never been possible and never will be.

And also without talking about how there seems to have been a decision that we have no choice but to pander to the worst of things, and actively encourage those who choose to spread disinformation, hate and spite in order to pursue their anti-immigration at any cost agenda.

They're acceding to the idea that britain's social problems are caused by immigrants, not by british government policy.

Another big big step back.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:30 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all. Busy day at school today so not around long.

About yesterday...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and
Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 2h2 hours ago

The debate has advanced from "Red, White and Blue" to the promise of a plan and a chance to scrutinise it. Neither was previously offered.
and this.
Law and policy ‏@Law_and_policy 2h2 hours ago

Law and policy Retweeted John Rentoul

Nicely done by @Keir_Starmer and his front bench colleagues.

Truly apocalyptic times we're living through here, people
Rentoul praising Labour front bench

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:36 am

citizenJA wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all. Busy day at school today so not around long.

About yesterday...

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and
Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 2h2 hours ago

The debate has advanced from "Red, White and Blue" to the promise of a plan and a chance to scrutinise it. Neither was previously offered.
and this.
Law and policy ‏@Law_and_policy 2h2 hours ago

Law and policy Retweeted John Rentoul

Nicely done by @Keir_Starmer and his front bench colleagues.
Truly apocalyptic times we're living through here, people
Rentoul praising Labour front bench

Being cynical, I guess Starmer is his best hope of a future leader at the moment

Post by **adam** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:38 am

Interestingly there is also this from the Independent yesterday...

Our estimates are a contribution to the debate, with lots of uncertainty, and should be treated as such.
Nevertheless, one important substantive point remains.
The framing of the Brexit debate – that we are somehow “trading off” the economic benefits of the Single Market against the downsides of free movement – is wrong.
Restricting trade, capital flows and immigration – reducing the openness of the UK economy - all have negative economic impacts.
If we want to make an (economic) success of Brexit, that will mean making openness – to migration as much as trade –a priority in our policies with respect both to the EU and the rest of the world.

Brexit: How a sharp fall in migration risks damaging the economy

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:45 am

adam wrote:Daily politics in the graun opens with news of Labour launching into policy discussion about how they've got immigration policy wrong and what needs to change...

...without mentioning one very obvious thing that needs to change - we need to stop pretending that we can have something from the EU that has simply never been possible and never will be.

And also without talking about how there seems to have been a decision that we have no choice but to pander to the worst of things, and actively encourage those who choose to spread disinformation, hate and spite in order to pursue their anti-immigration at any cost agenda.

They're acceding to the idea that britain's social problems are caused by immigrants, not by british government policy.

Another big big step back.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have other thoughts too. Businesses operating in the UK can order up people from
staffing agencies all over the world like items on a menu. This can exploit workers and nations having invested time,
effort and resources into educating people. There's no onus on British government or business investing in educating
and training UK people.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:46 am

adam wrote:Daily politics in the graun opens with news of Labour launching into policy discussion about how they've got immigration policy wrong and what needs to change...

...without mentioning one very obvious thing that needs to change - we need to stop pretending that we can have something from the EU that has simply never been possible and never will be.

And also without talking about how there seems to have been a decision that we have no choice but to pander to the worst of things, and actively encourage those who choose to spread disinformation, hate and spite in order to pursue their anti-immigration at any cost agenda.

They're acceding to the idea that britain's social problems are caused by immigrants, not by british government policy.

Another big big step back.

Yes, I agree absolutely. While we argue about immigration as if we've never had it or coped with it before, national government policies and priorities, such as tax cuts prioritised over investment in infrastructure, never get adequately questioned or challenged. Brexit is the new figleaf to cover deliberate Tory policy to shrink the state and remove public services. How do we even begin to convince people to vote for a change in economic policy if we don't even try to explain why our current economic policy is responsible for the squeeze on resources such as schools, housing and hospitals that we're currently experiencing? When was the last time anyone questioned the corporate tax cut policy and yet it it's virtually indefensible and even some businesses are expressing doubts about the need for further cuts.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 9:57 am

Willow904 wrote:
adam wrote:Daily politics in the graun opens with news of Labour launching into policy discussion about how they've got immigration policy wrong and what needs to change...

...without mentioning one very obvious thing that needs to change - we need to stop pretending that we can have something from the EU that has simply never been possible and never will be.

And also without talking about how there seems to have been a decision that we have no choice but to pander to the worst of things, and actively encourage those who choose to spread disinformation, hate and spite in order to pursue their anti-immigration at any cost agenda.

They're acceding to the idea that britain's social problems are caused by immigrants, not by british government policy.

Another big big step back.
Yes, I agree absolutely. While we argue about immigration as if we've never had it or coped with it before, national government policies and priorities, such as tax cuts prioritised over investment in infrastructure, never get adequately questioned or challenged. Brexit is the new figleaf to cover deliberate Tory policy to shrink the state and remove public services. How do we even begin to convince people to vote for a change in economic policy if we don't even try to explain why our current economic policy is responsible for the squeeze on resources such as schools, housing and hospitals that we're currently experiencing? When was the last time anyone questioned the corporate tax cut policy and yet it it's virtually indefensible and even some businesses are expressing doubts about the need for further cuts.

It was a bit of an odd intervention from Burnham, who I guess has other things in his sights at the moment.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 10:06 am

StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.

Northampton and it's 'new' stand funding looks like its not going away. What chance the MP will have to stand down, unlikely?

Not impossible if all this carries on. Certainly worth keeping an eye on, anyway - any by-election in Northampton S would be highly interesting.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 10:08 am

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brexit is a burning issue. But poverty is still the big one

Quite a few comments btl of this article make the same point about Brexit taking focus away from other issues.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 10:09 am

adam wrote:Interestingly there is also this from the Independent yesterday...

Our estimates are a contribution to the debate, with lots of uncertainty, and should be treated as such.
Nevertheless, one important substantive point remains.
The framing of the Brexit debate – that we are somehow “trading off” the economic benefits of the Single Market against the downsides of free movement – is wrong.
Restricting trade, capital flows and immigration – reducing the openness of the UK economy - all have negative economic impacts.
If we want to make an (economic) success of Brexit, that will mean making openness – to migration as much as trade –a priority in our policies with respect both to the EU and the rest of the world.
Brexit: How a sharp fall in migration risks damaging the economy

The thought of regular UK people losing freedom of movement within the EU makes me feel sick inside. It's not just wealthy people ('liberal elite')
having had the opportunity working and studying in other countries within the EU even though media messages don't spend much time noticing British
people are immigrants working in other EU countries. University and other research institutions collaboration with EU nations gone. It's not easy or inexpensive
obtaining visas and work permits, that needs to be made clear. It's a job in and of itself for non-EU nationals obtaining necessary documentation for opportunities
studying and working within the EU. After the decades the UK has been mostly succeeding within the EU, people may have forgotten things they take for granted now.

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 10:15 am

adam wrote:Interestingly there is also this from the Independent yesterday...

Our estimates are a contribution to the debate, with lots of uncertainty, and should be treated as such.
Nevertheless, one important substantive point remains.
The framing of the Brexit debate – that we are somehow “trading off” the economic benefits of the Single Market against the downsides of free movement – is wrong.
Restricting trade, capital flows and immigration – reducing the openness of the UK economy - all have negative economic impacts.
If we want to make an (economic) success of Brexit, that will mean making openness – to migration as much as trade –a priority in our policies with respect both to the EU and the rest of the world.

Funny how the anti-immigration brigade never mention this:

For stays of over three months: the right of residence is subject to certain conditions. EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourser ... 2.1.3.html Section B para 2a

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 10:18 am

citizenJA wrote:
adam wrote:Daily politics in the graun opens with news of Labour launching into policy discussion about how they've got immigration policy wrong and what needs to change...

...without mentioning one very obvious thing that needs to change - we need to stop pretending that we can have something from the EU that has simply never been possible and never will be.

And also without talking about how there seems to have been a decision that we have no choice but to pander to the worst of things, and actively encourage those who choose to spread disinformation, hate and spite in order to pursue their anti-immigration at any cost agenda.

They're acceding to the idea that britain's social problems are caused by immigrants, not by british government policy.

Another big big step back.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have other thoughts too. Businesses operating in the UK can order up people from
staffing agencies all over the world like items on a menu. This can exploit workers and nations having invested time,
effort and resources into educating people. There's no onus on British government or business investing in educating
and training UK people.

Please read this post from in in conjunction with Willow's excellent post following it. I'm not able to express the nuances
I have in my mind properly here in words. I'm in no way trying to justify a more closed immigration policy. Would doing
so somehow force British businesses or UK government into employing and educating British workers? No, it wouldn't.
The powerful will do fine. Regular people will lose freedom to choose alternatives. They'll have fewer choices than
they have now.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 10:21 am

Eric_WLothian wrote:Funny how the anti-immigration brigade never mention this:
For stays of over three months: the right of residence is subject to certain conditions. EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourser ... 2.1.3.html Section B para 2a

Exactly!

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 10:21 am

citizenJA wrote:
adam wrote:Interestingly there is also this from the Independent yesterday...

Our estimates are a contribution to the debate, with lots of uncertainty, and should be treated as such.
Nevertheless, one important substantive point remains.
The framing of the Brexit debate – that we are somehow “trading off” the economic benefits of the Single Market against the downsides of free movement – is wrong.
Restricting trade, capital flows and immigration – reducing the openness of the UK economy - all have negative economic impacts.
If we want to make an (economic) success of Brexit, that will mean making openness – to migration as much as trade –a priority in our policies with respect both to the EU and the rest of the world.
Brexit: How a sharp fall in migration risks damaging the economy
The thought of regular UK people losing freedom of movement within the EU makes me feel sick inside. It's not just wealthy people ('liberal elite')
having had the opportunity working and studying in other countries within the EU even though media messages don't spend much time noticing British
people are immigrants working in other EU countries. University and other research institutions collaboration with EU nations gone. It's not easy or inexpensive
obtaining visas and work permits, that needs to be made clear. It's a job in and of itself for non-EU nationals obtaining necessary documentation for opportunities
studying and working within the EU. After the decades the UK has been mostly succeeding within the EU, people may have forgotten things they take for granted now.

I couldn't agree more. There were some very god interventions yesterday around the positive effects of free movement. Here's Thangam Debonnaire

I rise to speak in support of my constituents, the people of Bristol West. Four out of five of them voted to remain, but they are all democrats. We have been dealt nothing but uncertainty by the Government, and that uncertainty cannot go on, because it is not good enough. It is already affecting businesses and individuals in Bristol West, and I will fight for them.
The big employers in my constituency—the university, the aerospace industry, the financial services sector and the healthcare system—all depend on the current free movement of labour and harmonisation of regulations across the EU. That may not sound sexy, but it is really important. The cost of imports and raw materials has gone up as the pound has sunk. The university and the tech and creative sectors have told me that they are being cut out of collaborative research and development proposals funded by Horizon 2020 and other streams. We do not know whether the Government will protect EU workers’ rights and environmental protection and bring them into UK legislation.
I passionately support the current free—or, rather, reciprocal—movement of people around the European Union. That provision has helped our industries, and I want it to be part of where we end up. I welcome and value all the EU citizens working in Bristol, and I know well the benefits for the UK when people from the UK are able to live, work, study and retire in other EU countries. There is complete uncertainty for all those people. They are not bargaining chips; they are people.
Young people, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has said, feel betrayed by this decision. They have told me that they feel as though we have thrown away their futures. I have also heard from industry that the harmonisation of regulations between the UK and the EU for our key industries must be part of what we end up with in order for them to trade freely; that is something other Members have spoken about. I want the UK to retain its right to apply for funds from Horizon 2020, to help us to remain in our position as a place that has among the best university provision in the world.
Many of us, from all parts of the House, feel we are economically better off being a full part of the single European market than being out of it. Anyone in the world can trade with the single European market. I want us, and businesses in my constituency want us, to do that as full members without tariffs and barriers. That is a choice that the Government could take.

[John Redwood: Did the hon. Lady learn anything from the referendum majority view? Does she not understand that a lot of people think that we are inviting too many people in, which makes it difficult to have good public services and decent wages?]

I have heard the result of the referendum, but I also know that there are 33,000 people from EU countries working in our NHS at the moment and that they face complete uncertainty, as does the NHS.
Labour has forced the Government to climb down today. Without the leadership shown by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Government would have continued to refuse to give this House any information about their overall aims for the UK’s relationship with the EU. Now they have had to commit to providing that information before they trigger article 50, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that. The Supreme Court may yet rule that the Government also have to give Parliament the right to vote on the matter, and I hope that it does so. The Government could end that uncertainty today and cut the expense of this court case by deciding to commit to giving this House full scrutiny and a vote.
My inbox is rammed with emails from constituents asking me to resist article 50, and I believe that that is, in large part, because of the absence of a good plan for Brexit. My constituents are not unreasonable. They know that 52% of those who voted in June voted to leave, but they want the views of the 48% to be represented in this process. I will do that unstintingly, because to do otherwise would be to allow a tyranny of the majority, which I do not believe is worthy of this House. My constituents deserve to know what the plan is; whether it will help or hinder our jobs, our industries, our environment and our standing in the world; and, above all, what will happen to our reciprocal movement of people, about which people are left with great uncertainty.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 10:29 am

I want to sound off an alarm getting everyone's attention reminding all what's at stake. Regular people will suffer all the losses.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 11:22 am

Meanwhile back in the Supreme Court, it seems the Welsh Assembly have chosen a good lawyer!

The Brexit vote split the UK, it split it into four parts. We have absolutely no quarrel with the vote ...but it is the most divisive political event that has happened over the past four decades and who is to determine what happens next ...it must be parliament.
All the recent events have nothing to do with this case. In particular, the Referendum Act of 2015 has absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues in this case.
The referendum result I think was discussed in argument yesterday. It’s a statute that has died. It’s served it’s purpose. You can’t revive a corpse by tearing up the death certificate. You cannot revive the 2015 act and give it a separate purpose, which is to in some way become a normative statute, because to do that is to give a statutory power and not a prerogative power. There is nothing in the 2015 act that can say anything sensible about the prerogative.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 11:23 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Meanwhile back in the Supreme Court, it seems the Welsh Assembly have chosen a good lawyer!
The Brexit vote split the UK, it split it into four parts. We have absolutely no quarrel with the vote ...but it is the most divisive political event that has happened over the past four decades and who is to determine what happens next ...it must be parliament.
All the recent events have nothing to do with this case. In particular, the Referendum Act of 2015 has absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues in this case.
The referendum result I think was discussed in argument yesterday. It’s a statute that has died. It’s served it’s purpose. You can’t revive a corpse by tearing up the death certificate. You cannot revive the 2015 act and give it a separate purpose, which is to in some way become a normative statute, because to do that is to give a statutory power and not a prerogative power. There is nothing in the 2015 act that can say anything sensible about the prerogative.

Anyone else thinking of dead parrots?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 11:49 am

Latest delayed transfers of care figures(October)
Ambulance Response.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... tober-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... tober-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 11:50 am

@PaulfromYorkshire

"You can’t revive a corpse by tearing up the death certificate."

That's a brilliant line!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 11:57 am

Next door's parrot has just died,so funnily enough.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:01 pm

I was never convinced the "Oh,no it's him again',repetition,didn't apply to me.That's the clean pre-watershed version.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:05 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No Bregrets: Sunderland after the vote to leave the European Union – video

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:12 pm

https://policypress.wordpress.com/2016/ ... he-future/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Danny Dorling on Rev Paul Nicolson, the housing crisis and hope for the future

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:14 pm

New national plan and funding brings bigger boost to estate regeneration

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... generation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **adam** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:14 pm

HindleA wrote:I was never convinced the "Oh,no it's him again',repetition,didn't apply to me.That's the clean pre-watershed version.

There's a good Barry Cryer joke about a parrot -

A woman walked into a shop to buy a parrot, a beautiful blue-and-gold job, and she said to the man, "How much?", and he said, "Twenty quid".
She said, "Twenty pounds? He's beautiful."
He said, "Well, I have to be quite frank with you. It's got a bit of form. It's got a bit of history. He was in a brothel and, to put it delicately, he's got quite an extensive vocabulary."
She said, "I'll take a chance on that", took the parrot back to her flat, took the cover off. The parrot looked round her flat and said, "New place. Very nice".
Two daughters walked in. The parrot said, "New place. New girls. Very nice indeed."
And her husband walked in, and the parrot said, "Hello Keith."

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:23 pm

Guardian politics ‏@GdnPolitics · 6m6 minutes ago

Boris Johnson's remarks about Saudi Arabia 'not the government's view'

Post by **adam** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:25 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Guardian politics ‏@GdnPolitics · 6m6 minutes ago

Boris Johnson's remarks about Saudi Arabia 'not the government's view'

The foreign secretary was not representing the views of the government when he ~~discussed~~ (edit) spoke out on foreign policy.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:25 pm

I'm now waiting for the Journalist of the Year to leap upon the rift between Number 10 and the Foreign Secretary.

1,000,000
999,999
999,998....

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:26 pm

TBF to Laura she is reporting it.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:27 pm

Laura Kuenssberg ‏@bbclaurak · 45m45 minutes ago

No 10 says Boris Johnson's comments on Saudi Arabia are 'not the government's position' - ouch

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:35 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... -cases-ons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One in 10 crimes recorded by police are domestic abuse cases – ONS

https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/domesti ... gmarch2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:41 pm

Laura Kuenssberg
✔
@bbclaurak

EU Diplomat asked me recently, 'what should we tell our govt when they ask if we should listen to Boris?' ...a fair question
12:00 PM - 8 Dec 2016

49 49 Retweets
46 (Politics Live, Guardian)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 12:54 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -mi6-chief" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hostile states pose 'fundamental threat' to Europe, says MI6 chief
Although Alex Younger does not name specific country, he makes clear that Russia is target of his remarks

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 1:09 pm

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Guardian politics ‏@GdnPolitics · 6m6 minutes ago

Boris Johnson's remarks about Saudi Arabia 'not the government's view'
The foreign secretary was not representing the views of the government when he ~~discussed~~ (edit) spoke out on foreign policy.

Look what this lot get away with.
How are non-Tory political parties supposed to compete with that?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 1:12 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Laura Kuenssberg
✔
@bbclaurak

EU Diplomat asked me recently, 'what should we tell our govt when they ask if we should listen to Boris?' ...a fair question
12:00 PM - 8 Dec 2016

49 49 Retweets
46 (Politics Live, Guardian)

Yeah, Johnson is only the UK's Foreign Secretary. It's not like it's a real job or anything.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 1:15 pm

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... ember-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ESA: outcomes of Work Capability Assessments including mandatory reconsiderations and appeals: December 2016

Some noting that initial assessments complying with 50/20/30 split ,not that there are any targets/deviations from expected norm,questioning whether this fails the Wednesbury test-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associa ... sbury_Corp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Thu 08 Dec, 2016 1:23 pm

When I say just died I mean sixth months ago but I did set up Adam and his Barry Cryer joke