Tuesday 6th February 2018
Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2018 7:09 am
Morning all.
He either believes this and is mad, or he is simply saying this for political advantage (or a combination of both). Any road up, it's dangerous.Rees-Mogg claims EU laws introduced during Brexit transition could 'drown the City'
This is what he told the Daily Telegraph in a comment on a story about how nearly 40 EU directives could come into force during the Brexit transition. Rees-Mogg told the paper:
European Union laws that could come in after we have left may look to the government as ‘a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand’ but could turn into a torrent similar to the one unleashed by Elijah.
It could drown the City of London, soak consumers and flood farmers. The range and extent of these laws covers almost everyone in the country one way or another and we would have no say at all over some laws that we could now veto.
The chance for a vengeful EU to cause regulatory damage to us may be too great for them to resist and the government needs to be strong in refusing to accept new laws once we have left. (Politics Live, Guardian)
One of the most overreaching ones is that we will all need 4! Yes! 4! recycle bins.PorFavor wrote:He either believes this and is mad, or he is simply saying this for political advantage (or a combination of both). Any road up, it's dangerous.Rees-Mogg claims EU laws introduced during Brexit transition could 'drown the City'
This is what he told the Daily Telegraph in a comment on a story about how nearly 40 EU directives could come into force during the Brexit transition. Rees-Mogg told the paper:
European Union laws that could come in after we have left may look to the government as ‘a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand’ but could turn into a torrent similar to the one unleashed by Elijah.
It could drown the City of London, soak consumers and flood farmers. The range and extent of these laws covers almost everyone in the country one way or another and we would have no say at all over some laws that we could now veto.
The chance for a vengeful EU to cause regulatory damage to us may be too great for them to resist and the government needs to be strong in refusing to accept new laws once we have left. (Politics Live, Guardian)
It's his version of empathy - he can only imagine that the rest of the EU is a spiteful and arrogant as he is.PorFavor wrote:He either believes this and is mad, or he is simply saying this for political advantage (or a combination of both). Any road up, it's dangerous.Rees-Mogg claims EU laws introduced during Brexit transition could 'drown the City'
This is what he told the Daily Telegraph in a comment on a story about how nearly 40 EU directives could come into force during the Brexit transition. Rees-Mogg told the paper:
European Union laws that could come in after we have left may look to the government as ‘a cloud no bigger than a man’s hand’ but could turn into a torrent similar to the one unleashed by Elijah.
It could drown the City of London, soak consumers and flood farmers. The range and extent of these laws covers almost everyone in the country one way or another and we would have no say at all over some laws that we could now veto.
The chance for a vengeful EU to cause regulatory damage to us may be too great for them to resist and the government needs to be strong in refusing to accept new laws once we have left. (Politics Live, Guardian)
Before 2016, the most troublesome aspect of British customs was the occasional queue of lorries on the M20 motorway. Now it threatens to cripple British manufacturing and reverse the Irish peace process. The government, for its part, determines its customs policy not on evidence, compromise or the national interest, but on neo-imperial fantasy, Europhobic fanaticism and fear of the prime minister’s colleagues. The customs union works. The government does not. Let us be sure we ditch the right one.
Well, it's certainly not down the back of mine. I could only retrieve a derisory $23 million.adam wrote:I see the world is $4trillion worse off than yesterday. Better have a look down the back of the sofa...
On Saturday, three of the area's Labour candidates wrote to local government secretary Sajid Javid calling for commissioners to take over the council. It would be a drastic move but one many feel is now inevitable.
"The Conservatives have failed Northamptonshire people on a scale that is unimaginable," Sally Keeble, the Labour candidate for Northampton North, says. "It's extraordinary that the council has reached the point of being served a section 114. It's not only an indictment of the mess they're in now but an indication that the current administration is not capable of taking the decisions needed to bring the council back into competence."
The Labour letter was followed by a statement from Northamptonshire's seven Conservative MPs saying they had "no faith" in the administration of the council and that central government was not to blame for the situation. The statement came as a surprise to many within the local party with one source from the Conservative Association describing the move as "crazy".
Woke early to discover WallStreet had done a little plunge, which delighted me.PorFavor wrote:Well, it's certainly not down the back of mine. I could only retrieve a derisory $23 million.adam wrote:I see the world is $4trillion worse off than yesterday. Better have a look down the back of the sofa...
Edited - $ for £
Indeed it isgilsey wrote:It's snowing.
No s**t!!PaulfromYorkshire wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 97136.html
Robert Chote says the government shouldn't have tried to keep the Brexit report secret.
What a great statement! Wish I'd written it.Carillion executives have been branded “delusional characters” by two select committee chairs. After a joint session of the Commons work and pensions committee and the business committee this morning, taking evidence from Carillion executives, the two committee chairs, Frank Field and Rachel Reeves, put out a joint statement saying:
This morning a series of delusional characters maintained that everything was hunky dory until it all went suddenly and unforeseeably wrong. We heard variously that this was the fault of the Bank of England, the foreign exchange markets, advisers, Brexit, the snap election, investors, suppliers, the construction industry, the business culture of the Middle East and professional designers of concrete beams. Everything we have seen points the fingers in another direction - to the people who built a giant company on sand in a desperate dash for cash. (Politics Live, Guardian)
SpinningHugo wrote:Another shit experience with the NHS today.
Underfunding is undoubtedly part of the story, alongside factors like an inability to get staff who can afford to live here.
The NHS has proven very expensive to me in terms for time. In an emergency it is great. Not otherwise.
I'm getting to the point where the Tories have won
I can't afford to use the NHS any longer and will use my (employer subsidised) health insurance plan instead and hope that is better (though I doubt it.)
So, is it immoral to opt out of collective provision by paying?
(Perhaps my anger at having wasted hours of my time again will have subsided by tomorrow.)
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Rachel Reeves reminding us why she was once regarded as somebody to watch.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:This standard response from you is becoming somewhat tedious, even if I might not disagree in some (a relatively few) cases.
so you expect these people to pack it in when they do not climb the slippery poll? You have a very high opinion of them all don't you? Those who packed it up were probably not very committed to public service were they......SpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote:This standard response from you is becoming somewhat tedious, even if I might not disagree in some (a relatively few) cases.
No less true. There is a whole generation of these moderates (or whatever label you prefer) who would have had expectations of being in government by now, but whose prospects are now nil, even if Labour wins in 2022. Tristram Hunt and Jamie Reed are having better and more productive lives.
There are plenty of useless ones who couldn't do anything else, or are now too old like Benn, but Reeves isn't one of them.
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The idea politicians like Reeves are in the wrong party is clearly false.
There is no way that, for example, Rayner, Thornberry, Abrahams, Starmer are Corbynista types, yet they are prospering in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
It's clear that if you put totems and shibboleths aside, Labour politicians can just get on together with helping people who are struggling, almost regardless of which traditional wing of the party they hail from.
Some politicians choose another path, but that's their choice and not as Hugo suggests inevitable IMHO.
It's all down to underfunding, say what you like, but that's what it is.SpinningHugo wrote:Another shit experience with the NHS today.
Underfunding is undoubtedly part of the story, alongside factors like an inability to get staff who can afford to live here.
The NHS has proven very expensive to me in terms for time. In an emergency it is great. Not otherwise.
I'm getting to the point where the Tories have won
I can't afford to use the NHS any longer and will use my (employer subsidised) health insurance plan instead and hope that is better (though I doubt it.)
So, is it immoral to opt out of collective provision by paying?
(Perhaps my anger at having wasted hours of my time again will have subsided by tomorrow.)
AngryAsWell wrote:It's all down to underfunding, say what you like, but that's what it is.SpinningHugo wrote:Another shit experience with the NHS today.
Underfunding is undoubtedly part of the story, alongside factors like an inability to get staff who can afford to live here.
The NHS has proven very expensive to me in terms for time. In an emergency it is great. Not otherwise.
I'm getting to the point where the Tories have won
I can't afford to use the NHS any longer and will use my (employer subsidised) health insurance plan instead and hope that is better (though I doubt it.)
So, is it immoral to opt out of collective provision by paying?
(Perhaps my anger at having wasted hours of my time again will have subsided by tomorrow.)
In the last months of Labour I had regular hospital appointments, each one on time with very little waiting. We had a dedicated children's emergency unit so children went right though A&E into the children's A&E - again with very little waiting. When one of my grandkids suffered a fairly bad burn we were in, seen to, and out within one hour.
Don't blame the NHS. Blame the tories.
On private do take care, as a sports massage therapist ('twas in a another lifetime, one of toil & blood - to quote Dylan) one of my clients suffered a cruciate ligament injury & elected to have the repair operation done at a local private hospital rather than wait the (then!!) 6 weeks for NHS Op.
They hashed it, snicked a main artery and he bled out. Private hospital didn't have enough blood supplies to keep transfusion going till they got him to the NHS hospital. He was 34 with a small child.
Times will have changed (I hope) but still...can't be too careful
By the way, you never reply to me, am I blocked ?
Also, you sound really down, why not have a try at mindfulness https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-an ... ndfulness/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Blame the Tories" is fine, and does give some satisfaction, but losing days of your life overall to a minor injury (as I have), or having to wait hour upon hours for a relative I am responsible for to be treated is a waste of my life. It was unutterably shit today, and this was a worse repeat of previous bad experience.AngryAsWell wrote:It's all down to underfunding, say what you like, but that's what it is.SpinningHugo wrote:Another shit experience with the NHS today.
Underfunding is undoubtedly part of the story, alongside factors like an inability to get staff who can afford to live here.
The NHS has proven very expensive to me in terms for time. In an emergency it is great. Not otherwise.
I'm getting to the point where the Tories have won
I can't afford to use the NHS any longer and will use my (employer subsidised) health insurance plan instead and hope that is better (though I doubt it.)
So, is it immoral to opt out of collective provision by paying?
(Perhaps my anger at having wasted hours of my time again will have subsided by tomorrow.)
In the last months of Labour I had regular hospital appointments, each one on time with very little waiting. We had a dedicated children's emergency unit so children went right though A&E into the children's A&E - again with very little waiting. When one of my grandkids suffered a fairly bad burn we were in, seen to, and out within one hour.
Don't blame the NHS. Blame the tories.
On private do take care, as a sports massage therapist ('twas in a another lifetime, one of toil & blood - to quote Dylan) one of my clients suffered a cruciate ligament injury & elected to have the repair operation done at a local private hospital rather than wait the (then!!) 6 weeks for NHS Op.
They hashed it, snicked a main artery and he bled out. Private hospital didn't have enough blood supplies to keep transfusion going till they got him to the NHS hospital. He was 34 with a small child.
Times will have changed (I hope) but still...can't be too careful
By the way, you never reply to me, am I blocked ?
Also, you sound really down, why not have a try at mindfulness https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-an ... ndfulness/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is a good post, I like it a lot. Thank you, Paul.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The idea politicians like Reeves are in the wrong party is clearly false.
There is no way that, for example, Rayner, Thornberry, Abrahams, Starmer are Corbynista types, yet they are prospering in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
It's clear that if you put totems and shibboleths aside, Labour politicians can just get on together with helping people who are struggling, almost regardless of which traditional wing of the party they hail from.
Some politicians choose another path, but that's their choice and not as Hugo suggests inevitable IMHO.
Not only do you cite no evidence to support your view, there is clear evidence that you are wrong. Do you think you'll get away with it here?SpinningHugo wrote:PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The idea politicians like Reeves are in the wrong party is clearly false.
There is no way that, for example, Rayner, Thornberry, Abrahams, Starmer are Corbynista types, yet they are prospering in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
It's clear that if you put totems and shibboleths aside, Labour politicians can just get on together with helping people who are struggling, almost regardless of which traditional wing of the party they hail from.
Some politicians choose another path, but that's their choice and not as Hugo suggests inevitable IMHO.
Corbyn will never forgive and forget. Even assuming, arguendo, that Rayner is on the same page politically as Reeves, the latter is completely finished careerwise. (And considering her statements on immigration, I do not regret that.)
Thornberry and Starmer are there because of career ambitions. Thornberry's might be realised, though I doubt it as she is not of the True Faith but only a Fellower Traveller. She has obvious political skill though. Starmer was kidding himself, and has proven a useful idiot. He is basically useless.
I take your point on changing governments doing as they will with the NHS, but I had thought that 13 years under Labour had set the NHS in concrete, clearly it didn't & the tories have wrecked it - again. I don't see any other alternative though. I simply cannot countenance an insurance based model and prefer the option of funding the NHS properly via taxation. How it can be set in law that an incoming government MUST (legally) fund the NHS is a little beyond my payscale though. But I'm sure legal eagles could work that out."Blame the Tories" is fine, and does give some satisfaction, but losing days of your life overall to a minor injury (as I have), or having to wait hour upon hours for a relative I am responsible for to be treated is a waste of my life. It was unutterably shit today, and this was a worse repeat of previous bad experience.
I'm fed up with it. As I've said before, I think a system of financing that was less prone to being blown to bits by political change (Labour are not going to be in power for the rest of my life even if they win in 2022) would be better. Sorry for not replying, you're certainly not blocked. I only block HindleA (who I have nothing against really but posts too much) and one other.
This is what you said last week - saying the housing issues were not caused by a housing shortage (except in London)SpinningHugo wrote:"Blame the Tories" is fine, and does give some satisfaction, but losing days of your life overall to a minor injury (as I have), or having to wait hour upon hours for a relative I am responsible for to be treated is a waste of my life. It was unutterably shit today, and this was a worse repeat of previous bad experience.AngryAsWell wrote:It's all down to underfunding, say what you like, but that's what it is.SpinningHugo wrote:Another shit experience with the NHS today.
Underfunding is undoubtedly part of the story, alongside factors like an inability to get staff who can afford to live here.
The NHS has proven very expensive to me in terms for time. In an emergency it is great. Not otherwise.
I'm getting to the point where the Tories have won
I can't afford to use the NHS any longer and will use my (employer subsidised) health insurance plan instead and hope that is better (though I doubt it.)
So, is it immoral to opt out of collective provision by paying?
(Perhaps my anger at having wasted hours of my time again will have subsided by tomorrow.)
In the last months of Labour I had regular hospital appointments, each one on time with very little waiting. We had a dedicated children's emergency unit so children went right though A&E into the children's A&E - again with very little waiting. When one of my grandkids suffered a fairly bad burn we were in, seen to, and out within one hour.
Don't blame the NHS. Blame the tories.
On private do take care, as a sports massage therapist ('twas in a another lifetime, one of toil & blood - to quote Dylan) one of my clients suffered a cruciate ligament injury & elected to have the repair operation done at a local private hospital rather than wait the (then!!) 6 weeks for NHS Op.
They hashed it, snicked a main artery and he bled out. Private hospital didn't have enough blood supplies to keep transfusion going till they got him to the NHS hospital. He was 34 with a small child.
Times will have changed (I hope) but still...can't be too careful
By the way, you never reply to me, am I blocked ?
Also, you sound really down, why not have a try at mindfulness https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-an ... ndfulness/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm fed up with it. As I've said before, I think a system of financing that was less prone to being blown to bits by political change (Labour are not going to be in power for the rest of my life even if they win in 2022) would be better. Sorry for not replying, you're certainly not blocked. I only block HindleA (who I have nothing against really but posts too much) and one other.
Oh, and yes I'd read the Chakrobarty piece. I am sure many like him, but I think him weak. I'd really like a housing specialist to go through the options on the HDV. As I've said on here, I think we need more units full stop. That leads to the largest increase in social housing It doesn;'t help to say "x of those built must be social housing" if that decreases the number of units (which is the important thing).
Many here won't like it, but the takeaway is that the increase in cost is caused by low interest rates, not unit shortage. (There is unit shortage in London, but hardly anywhere else.)
Thanks JA.citizenJA wrote:This is a good post, I like it a lot. Thank you, Paul.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:The idea politicians like Reeves are in the wrong party is clearly false.
There is no way that, for example, Rayner, Thornberry, Abrahams, Starmer are Corbynista types, yet they are prospering in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
It's clear that if you put totems and shibboleths aside, Labour politicians can just get on together with helping people who are struggling, almost regardless of which traditional wing of the party they hail from.
Some politicians choose another path, but that's their choice and not as Hugo suggests inevitable IMHO.
Sending Owen Smith off to NI did show that Seumas had a hitherto well hidden sense of humour.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:And Owen Smith FFS
How much more forgiveness do you want? Thing is in Corbyn's view Smith was I'm sure rather honourable. He set out his stall and put himself in front of the party in an election.
I think we'll just have to disagree about whether Labour's shadow team are a crack group of Labour's brightest and best.PaulfromYorkshire wrote: Not only do you cite no evidence to support your view, there is clear evidence that you are wrong. Do you think you'll get away with it here?
For example, Clive Lewis rebelled against Corbyn on Article 50. Yet he is back. Forgiven and forgotten presumably. And a good thing too.
That's a deflection. You said Corbyn doesn't forgive and forget and presented no evidence to support the assertion.SpinningHugo wrote:I think we'll just have to disagree about whether Labour's shadow team are a crack group of Labour's brightest and best.PaulfromYorkshire wrote: Not only do you cite no evidence to support your view, there is clear evidence that you are wrong. Do you think you'll get away with it here?
For example, Clive Lewis rebelled against Corbyn on Article 50. Yet he is back. Forgiven and forgotten presumably. And a good thing too.
I think it easily the worst shadow cabinet since before ww2 (and I can't really judge that era). There are plenty of able people on the Labour benches but almost none on the frontbench (if I put together an ideal team I think only Owen Smith would survive in his current role).
The Tories are equally bad of course, many of their more able also being excluded.