RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:So the amendment to the Agriculture Bill which would have banned low standard food imports from entering the UK was defeated in the House of Commons by 51 votes this last week. And if there's one thing we can be clear on during this pandemic it's that you wouldn't want a slimmer and healthier populace, bring on the mass produced American food we need to supersize us on the cheap. All in the name of taking back control of course.

You have to fucking wonder, don't you? If the current situation does not prompt MPs to back higher standards for agriculture and food, then what will?

More money from health educators than comes from the junk food industry + private health care combined?

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:So the amendment to the Agriculture Bill which would have banned low standard food imports from entering the UK was defeated in the House of Commons by 51 votes this last week. And if there's one thing we can be clear on during this pandemic it's that you wouldn't want a slimmer and healthier populace, bring on the mass produced American food we need to supersize us on the cheap. All in the name of taking back control of course.

You have to fucking wonder, don't you? If the current situation does not prompt MPs to back higher standards for agriculture and food, then what will?

You've seen our MPs, right?

Which Tyler wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:So the amendment to the Agriculture Bill which would have banned low standard food imports from entering the UK was defeated in the House of Commons by 51 votes this last week. And if there's one thing we can be clear on during this pandemic it's that you wouldn't want a slimmer and healthier populace, bring on the mass produced American food we need to supersize us on the cheap. All in the name of taking back control of course.

You have to fucking wonder, don't you? If the current situation does not prompt MPs to back higher standards for agriculture and food, then what will?

More money from health educators than comes from the junk food industry + private health care combined?

Don't worry, we've got Dominic Cummings the super-forecaster par excellence, so we're in good hands. Sadly other nations may suffer through not having such a high quality individual.

This is just another of those times when one wonders about moving to Wyoming to live in isolation resolved to shooting any state or federal agent stupid enough to come onto your lands, because the wise owl is quite right, if this isn't going to prompt a change to raise standards what would it take?

Banquo wrote: You've seen our MPs, right?

Shout out for former socialist student and MP, Eric Pickles. So as not to be accused of sexism in picking on Eric then nobody ever wanted to see Ann Widdecombe in beachwear either

The one thing I do wish to die a death as a result of this pandemic is the manifestly flawed theory that unfettered free market forces will take care of society. Call it a dry run for when the earth's climate stops supporting life if you like.

Nobody has unfettered free market ideology in play, we're all arguing about the extent to which regulation is required and the role of the public and private sectors. And actually I can't think of even one person calling for an unfettered free market, some people might mistakenly think they are but like those who claim they're against zonal marking very quickly realise they're talking bollocks when quizzed

Digby wrote:Nobody has unfettered free market ideology in play, we're all arguing about the extent to which regulation is required and the role of the public and private sectors. And actually I can't think of even one person calling for an unfettered free market, some people might mistakenly think they are but like those who claim they're against zonal marking very quickly realise they're talking bollocks when quizzed

I will note that MP lives in Yank country, home to a significant number of absolutely mental Republican politicians who have never once realised that they're talking bollocks.

Puja

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:So the amendment to the Agriculture Bill which would have banned low standard food imports from entering the UK was defeated in the House of Commons by 51 votes this last week. And if there's one thing we can be clear on during this pandemic it's that you wouldn't want a slimmer and healthier populace, bring on the mass produced American food we need to supersize us on the cheap. All in the name of taking back control of course.

You have to fucking wonder, don't you? If the current situation does not prompt MPs to back higher standards for agriculture and food, then what will?

Nothing will. This is what Brexit is for: torching "red tape" like food standards.

It’s an insurance policy. If the plan to kill the working poor by relaxing lockdown doesn’t work. Then hormone injected beef and chlorinated chicken will do the trick.

Digby wrote:Nobody has unfettered free market ideology in play, we're all arguing about the extent to which regulation is required and the role of the public and private sectors. And actually I can't think of even one person calling for an unfettered free market, some people might mistakenly think they are but like those who claim they're against zonal marking very quickly realise they're talking bollocks when quizzed

I think we are all now acutely aware of the public health consequences of callous deregulation of health and safety standards. To promote further deregulation of such at this moment in time is to actively promote an unfettered market. How else would this decision be justified if not by ideology? It certainly is not guided by real time data.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:Nobody has unfettered free market ideology in play, we're all arguing about the extent to which regulation is required and the role of the public and private sectors. And actually I can't think of even one person calling for an unfettered free market, some people might mistakenly think they are but like those who claim they're against zonal marking very quickly realise they're talking bollocks when quizzed

I think we are all now acutely aware of the public health consequences of callous deregulation of health and safety standards. To promote further deregulation of such at this moment in time is to actively promote an unfettered market. How else would this decision be justified if not by ideology? It certainly is not guided by real time data.

For sure there are people in favour of looser/less regulation, just that's more than a little different to unfettered free markets. I honestly can't think of one person who could be accurately claimed as seeking a wholly free market approach. Which isn't to say plenty of those pursuing a lowering of standards aren't doing so out of ideology, ignorance of data, often wilful ignorance, and aren't a bunch of callous aresholes

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:Nobody has unfettered free market ideology in play, we're all arguing about the extent to which regulation is required and the role of the public and private sectors. And actually I can't think of even one person calling for an unfettered free market, some people might mistakenly think they are but like those who claim they're against zonal marking very quickly realise they're talking bollocks when quizzed

I think we are all now acutely aware of the public health consequences of callous deregulation of health and safety standards. To promote further deregulation of such at this moment in time is to actively promote an unfettered market. How else would this decision be justified if not by ideology? It certainly is not guided by real time data.

For sure there are people in favour of looser/less regulation, just that's more than a little different to unfettered free markets. I honestly can't think of one person who could be accurately claimed as seeking a wholly free market approach. Which isn't to say plenty of those pursuing a lowering of standards aren't doing so out of ideology, ignorance of data, often wilful ignorance, and aren't a bunch of callous aresholes

Those people in favour of less regulation are surely the definition of proponents of untehering the free market, no? As Puja pointed out, I live in a country in which the free market has been given free reign over public health with little or no government regulation. That is unfettered, and it has been a unmitigated disaster. The fish rots from the head down.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

I think we are all now acutely aware of the public health consequences of callous deregulation of health and safety standards. To promote further deregulation of such at this moment in time is to actively promote an unfettered market. How else would this decision be justified if not by ideology? It certainly is not guided by real time data.

For sure there are people in favour of looser/less regulation, just that's more than a little different to unfettered free markets. I honestly can't think of one person who could be accurately claimed as seeking a wholly free market approach. Which isn't to say plenty of those pursuing a lowering of standards aren't doing so out of ideology, ignorance of data, often wilful ignorance, and aren't a bunch of callous aresholes

Those people in favour of less regulation are surely the definition of proponents of untehering the free market, no? As Puja pointed out, I live in a country in which the free market has been given free reign over public health with little or no government regulation. That is unfettered, and it has been a unmitigated disaster. The fish rots from the head down.

The market doesn't have free rein in the USA, it does have much more free rein than many other nations and in both health and other areas and I think it a little nuts, but it is still regulated and there is public provision. The budget for HHS will be enormous, the FDA is for sure a regulatory hurdle to clear, and so on and so on.

You and I would likely agree on it being more sensible to increase the role of the state, especially in health and social services, I'm only saying that doesn't mean there's a free for all as things stand, and again I don't know of anyone actually calling for that

With the deadline for a brexit extension having now passed, this letter to EU member states from Michel Barnier makes pretty grim reading for any UK resident relying on taxes to keep the country running. Financial services contributes around 11% of all UK tax receipts.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/fi ... 020_en.pdf

It's worth noting that day 1 after we exit, if we exit, the EU still needs London as a financial hub. And they cannot do much about that in the short term, so I suspect something has to give on both sides.

My concern is no deal sets the EU up to pick off sectors from London as and when they're able to deliver the service from within the EU once they reading operationally (including IT and compliance wise), and for what? Worse, the EU was anything but a single market for services and there were massive gains the UK could have been enjoying if we'd stayed to help open the EU up, so this remains madness, but people's will be done

Is this as cruel as it sounds on first glance?

Digby wrote:It's worth noting that day 1 after we exit, if we exit, the EU still needs London as a financial hub. And they cannot do much about that in the short term, so I suspect something has to give on both sides.

My concern is no deal sets the EU up to pick off sectors from London as and when they're able to deliver the service from within the EU once they reading operationally (including IT and compliance wise), and for what? Worse, the EU was anything but a single market for services and there were massive gains the UK could have been enjoying if we'd stayed to help open the EU up, so this remains madness, but people's will be done

Brexit was the people's will, but that could have been interpreted in a number of different ways, all of which would have been less harmful to the economy. This is the hard brexiteers' will being done.

NB the banks don't really care if they have to operate from Dublin or Frankfurt.

On the positive side, the banks will probably be able to legally operate out of their much smaller EU offices while the main work - and most of the tax-paying personnel - remain in London. But this will obviously erode the City's position. And if a big bank should take the plunge to really decamp to Dublin (say) ... what then, will an exodus begin?

Digby wrote:It's worth noting that day 1 after we exit, if we exit, the EU still needs London as a financial hub. And they cannot do much about that in the short term, so I suspect something has to give on both sides.

My concern is no deal sets the EU up to pick off sectors from London as and when they're able to deliver the service from within the EU once they reading operationally (including IT and compliance wise), and for what? Worse, the EU was anything but a single market for services and there were massive gains the UK could have been enjoying if we'd stayed to help open the EU up, so this remains madness, but people's will be done

They've been preparing for 4 years. We're well into the mid-term and as I've understood it a lot of work has already transferred. I'd be surprised if they weren't able to do what is needed in short order.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:It's worth noting that day 1 after we exit, if we exit, the EU still needs London as a financial hub. And they cannot do much about that in the short term, so I suspect something has to give on both sides.

My concern is no deal sets the EU up to pick off sectors from London as and when they're able to deliver the service from within the EU once they reading operationally (including IT and compliance wise), and for what? Worse, the EU was anything but a single market for services and there were massive gains the UK could have been enjoying if we'd stayed to help open the EU up, so this remains madness, but people's will be done

They've been preparing for 4 years. We're well into the mid-term and as I've understood it a lot of work has already transferred. I'd be surprised if they weren't able to do what is needed in short order.

Nah, there's shit loads more needed as until now it's tinkering on the margins, though I don't see any incentive to stop them chipping away. Frustrating as hell

Apparently, there is concern in government that the UK needs to do more to prepare for Brexit. The worst offenders are those who voted for Brexit who don’t believe there will be a downside and thus have made no preparations.

Oh well, sometime reality really hurts.

Reading this interpreted essentially as "NHS back on the table". Is that fair? Do you take the 'intention' of the clause at face value? I can't speak legalese or whatever fucking language this is written in.



All I'm seeing is the (perhaps conveniently timed) announcement of a pay rise for nearly a million public sector workers.

Of course the NHS and everything else is on the table. Did you expect anything else?

With the Tories its always best to look at what they do, not at what they say.

I think a government keeping its options open is fine, the issue for me is I wouldn't trust this government with flushing a toilet

Digby wrote:I think a government keeping its options open is fine, the issue for me is I wouldn't trust this government with flushing a toilet

You've nailed it. I was going to say that the tribalism of our politics at the moment means that the very fact the amendment came from Labour nixed any chance of most Tory MPs supporting it and that voting it down doesn't necessarily mean that the government is opposed to the spirit of the amendment, but I'm disinclined to give this government the benefit of the doubt.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I think a government keeping its options open is fine, the issue for me is I wouldn't trust this government with flushing a toilet

You've nailed it. I was going to say that the tribalism of our politics at the moment means that the very fact the amendment came from Labour nixed any chance of most Tory MPs supporting it and that voting it down doesn't necessarily mean that the government is opposed to the spirit of the amendment, but I'm disinclined to give this government the benefit of the doubt.

Puja

I think we have to assume that everyone who voted against the clause thought either 1) it was a bad thing or 2) their careers were more important than the good the clause would have achieved.