By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Given all that Stu and Brenner have had to put up with, it's great to think they'll both the plying their trade next season in the Premier League. And here is a lovely extract from Stu's latest article.
"I stopped and looked at different aged fans unified in joy. Older generations smiled wistfully as core memories from their youth were unlocked. Those in their early 30s and below soaked in a moment they’d never experienced before and, up until fairly recently, probably assumed they never would. Kids, many on parents’ shoulders, took it all in, wide-eyed, unaware of the lifetime love affair they are now locked into.
"He thinks this is normal," one father said, smiling, looking down at his young son.
A grand old football club with a rich history had sleepwalked its way to third-tier midtable mediocrity. It was death by a thousand cuts. Apathy set in. Year after year, hundreds quietly walked away and found better things to do with their time. Those that stuck with it witnessed lows too countless to mention. Going to the game felt like a chore for the paying punter. Reporting on it often felt like a thankless task.
And then along came ambitious America owners. They installed Mark Ashton and he, in turn, appointed Kieran McKenna. It all proved to be a match made in heaven. A giant was awoken from its slumber. The oil tanker turned and juggernaut-like momentum gathered. Hearts and minds have well and truly been captured. A community has been united. Years of pain have been eradicated. Ipswich is back on the map.
It was all worth the wait. This achievement will leave a lasting legacy."
I have this afternoon received the following email from my union, of which I am a retired member. I thought some might be interested in its contents.
Message from the General Secretary: Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Colleagues,
I wanted to let you know that we have today submitted an application for Judicial Review on the UK Government’s Rwanda Safety Act (its full name being the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024).
This is not a decision that the Executive Committee has taken lightly, nor welcomes. I wrote to you in March explaining that we had written to the Home Secretary and Minister for the Cabinet Office, outlining our concerns regarding the provisions in the then-Bill, which indicated ministers may have discretion to ignore Rule 39 orders from the European Court of Human Rights. These are provisional orders, similar to an interim injunction from a UK court, and would potentially be issued to prevent the deportation of an asylum seeker, before the final decision is taken by the court.
Ignoring a Rule 39 order would be a breach of international law and civil servants have a legal obligation under the Civil Service Code to “uphold the rule of law and administration of justice”. We have been able to establish that whilst the current version of the Code does not make specific reference to international law, the original version, introduced in 1996, did. When it was updated in 2006 to simplify it, the government confirmed as part of the consultation on that revision, that the obligations on international law remain.
The Civil Service Code is not merely a professional code, it is backed by statute and therefore conveys on civil servants a legal obligation to follow it. Neither ministers nor guidance can overrule that, only another act of Parliament can.
There is therefore a potential conflict between the instructions of a minister and the legal obligations under the Code, if a minister was to decide to ignore a Rule 39 order.
The government could have chosen to have an explicit provision in the Act regarding breaking those international law commitments which would have resolved this tension, but they chose not to. Our correspondence made clear the areas of concern and they had plenty of time to address this during the protracted parliamentary stages. This is therefore no accident. It is not a matter of poor drafting, but a political choice from the government. Given their refusal to address these issues, we have been left with no choice but to ask a court to rule on this conflict.
Breaking our international obligations under the ECHR is not an uncontroversial act. The Government knew that there were elements within the Conservative party that would not have supported such an explicit decision from Parliament. Instead, they chose to deliberately fudge this issue, and in doing so, have created this conflict with the Civil Service Code.
Ministers have an obligation under the Ministerial Code to “uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in a way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code”. Civil servants should never be left in a position where they are conflicted between the instructions of ministers and adhering to the Civil Service Code, yet that is exactly what the government has chosen to do.
That it chose this controversial policy, with all of the political furore that surrounds it, is also an irresponsible act. Those who constantly seek to undermine the integrity and impartiality of the civil service have seized on the difficulties the government have had in implementing this policy, to accuse the civil service of acting politically.
We have been clear all along that our challenge is not to the policy itself - that is a matter for Parliament. Civil servants know that they have to support the government of the day and implement policy, regardless of their political beliefs, but they also know they have a legal obligation to adhere to the Civil Service Code. Faced with a government that is prepared to act in this reckless way, it is left to the FDA to defend our members and the integrity of the civil service.
Our only option therefore is to ask for a court to decide on this issue. In doing so, we want to do everything we can to resolve this before a civil servant is potentially placed in this invidious position by a minister and we have sought to act as quickly as practicable after the bill received Royal Assent.
We do not welcome this action, but neither are we prepared to shy away from it to protect the interests of our members and the integrity of the Civil Service Code. There are no guarantees when it comes to legal action of this nature. It comes with risks and is of course costly, but I know from talking to members in the Home Office, and across the civil service, this is an issue that goes to the heart of their professional integrity.
This a matter that impacts on the whole civil service, so please feel free to share this email with colleagues who are not yet members of the FDA. They can find out more about this action and how to join here .
The following letter in today's Guardian prompted me to read the article, but my take on it is that whatever happens this season or next, let's just enjoy the journey we are on.
"As a Burnley fan, all I can say to Ipswich fans is that you must believe what Jonathan Liew is trying to tell you: “that this – right here – is the good bit. With a team they adore and a league they are tearing apart and a coach who is theirs and theirs alone. Not the grim struggle that comes after.” Never has just a tiny part of an article expressed my feelings of last season and this so succinctly."
"I know a few Ipswich fans and quite a lot of my time right now is being spent trying to convince them that this – right here – is the good bit. With a team they adore and a league they are tearing apart and a coach who is theirs and theirs alone.
Not the grim struggle that comes after: desperately begging big clubs for loan players, the sheer cliff face to 35 points, hours spent waiting for VAR decisions, 21% possession against Manchester City, elite tactical fouling. Getting bossed 2-0 at home and feeling weirdly grateful. Chris Sutton suddenly deciding to have an opinion about you. Getting rinsed by agents. Getting beaten by literal nation states. For the teams at the bottom of the food chain, the Premier League has come to resemble an abusive relationship."
This is not a criticism of our owners because the expression has a sporting origin, but am I the only one to be irritated by the constant use of the expression game changer, which was used on the BBC news today to describe the new melanoma treatment?
If nothing else it breaks one of Orwell's six rules for writing clear and tight prose.
"Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."
As someone with children aged 20 and 23 who might well take advantage, this is potentially great news. I doubt the Tories would go along with it, but let's hope Labour don't rule it out in an effort to appeal to the Red Wall. I rather fear they will though.
Commission proposes Brexit deal for 18 to 30 year olds Lisa O'Carroll
The European Commission has proposed opening negotiations with the UK to allow free movement enjoyed before Brexit to millions of 18 to 30 year olds in a major post Brexit concession.
It said it will now seek approval from individual EU leaders to start the talks which will see one of the most controversial elements of Brexit, a block on the right to live in each others countries visa free, partially eliminated.
Under the envisaged agreement, both EU and UK citizens aged between 18 to 30 years would be able to stay for up to 4 years in the destination country, the European Commission said in a detailed statement.
“The objective would be to facilitate youth exchanges, making it easier for young EU citizens to travel, work and live in the UK, with reciprocity for young UK nationals in a member state,” the Commission said.
EDIT: Here's a link to the Commission's proposals.
As someone aged 64 who thus missed out on the Autumn Covid booster, I will be very tempted to get the vaccine when they go on sale imminently at places like Boots.
I'm a sucker for punishment, and would be more than happy for a Bill Gates' microchip to be inserted into me. The only consideration is whether it is strictly necessary at this time of year given we are moving into the summer months.
As regards the Spring 2024 booster, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advises that a COVID-19 vaccine should be offered to:
adults aged 75 years and over residents in a care home for older adults individuals aged 6 months and over who are immunosuppressed (as defined in tables 3 or 4 in the COVID-19 chapter of the Green Book)
However, cost effectiveness is an important factor in JCVI's advices. This makes me think that it is probably worth someone my age paying for the vaccine because they would probably give them to those 65 and over if cost were not a factor.
Far from being the bloated, inefficient bureaucracy derided by Euroskeptics -- led by former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson when he was the fabulist journalist for the London Telegraph -- who colored the prevailing Brexit media narrative, the EU economy is growing 2.3 percentage points faster than the UK’s on an annual basis, with GDP advancing 24% since 2016, compared with the 6% for the UK. During the 10 years before the Brexit referendum, EU GDP lagged behind the UK annually by 12 basis points, since 2000 by 9 basis points and the two decades preceding Brexit, by 149 basis points, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
The dichotomy is similar for GDP per individual among the 20 countries sharing the euro. The bloc’s per capita GDP increased 19%, or 2.19 percentage points more than the UK on annual basis since 2016, an overwhelming reversal of the decade prior to Brexit. During the 10 years preceding Brexit, annualized euro zone growth was barely eight basis points better than the UK, and between 2000 and 2016 the euro zone trailed the UK by six basis points.
The post-Brexit overhaul of alcohol taxation, which would tax drinks on alcohol by volume (ABV) rather than the type of alcohol, was brought in officially last August after being put forward by the Treasury when Rishi Sunak was chancellor. Under the plan the amount of duty paid rises by 2p for every 0.1% increase in strength.
The government acknowledged the new administrative burden for businesses and put an 18-month “easement” period in place. During this period all wines between 11.5% and 14.5% would have to pay £2.67 in tax, the 12.5% ABV duty rate.
This has prompted businesses such as Majestic Wine, which has more than 200 shops around the country, to speak out, saying it will spell higher prices and a huge administrative burden on sellers.
The wine sector has been lobbying the government to keep the easement rules in place permanently, but Gareth Davies, the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, confirmed earlier this month that it would press ahead.
“The minister demonstrated in this debate a worrying lack of understanding of our sector, suggesting that the alcohol duty system has become simpler and easier since Brexit,” said Colley. “That is simply not the case. In fact, the system in place pre-Brexit was much simpler to administer.”
The changes will lead to huge administrative costs for businesses, which will have to work out the tax due on each wine. Even small shops can sell hundreds of different wines.
A document from Prevent, the official scheme to stop radicalisation, includes believing in socialism, communism, anti-fascism and anti-abortion in a list of potential signs of ideologies leading to terrorism.
As someone proud to call themselves a socialist, I'd better hand myself in now. And Keir Starmer ought to be on the look-out if he is elected because Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution describes it as a democratic socialist party.
But I suppose this just goes to show how far to the right the country has moved, and not surprising in relation to Prevent given the appointment of William Shawcross to lead a review it led to a boycott of the review because of his alleged anti-Muslim and rightwing views.
EDIT: "alleged" is the wrong word given the following from Wikipedia, but how can a person with such views have anything to do with Prevent? Sadly, it follows a pattern of the Tories in recent years appointing to public bodies people with very right wing views.
In 2006 Shawcross warned of "a vast fifth column" of Muslims in Europe who "wish to destroy us"; we should not shy away from labelling the problem "Islamic fascism".
In a 2010 article for National Review Shawcross described Britain as a "mere piece of the bland but increasingly oppressive Bambiland of the E.U., promoting such PC global issues as gay rights (except in Muslim lands) and man-made climate change." In the same article, Shawcross described Labour's "'multicultural' ideology" as a "catastrophe" and implied that Labour's immigration policy was designed to "dilute Britishness".
I've mentioned on here before my scepticism about the fiscal rules which both parties are wedded to and which only require national debt to be falling in the fifth year, but on a rolling basis.
It is this rule which on current forecasts will give Hunt the headroom of £13 billion to help make tax cuts. But as the following article indicates such forecasts are very inaccurate rendering the fiscal rules, in my view, rather illusory.
"Right now that "headroom" is £13bn. But national debt figures move about rather a lot, as do GDP figures.
A sudden economic shock can send the debt load soaring higher, as can a rise in interest rates. And forecasting anything five years hence is tremendously difficult.
So these very numbers - the ones upon which everything else depends - are, to put it lightly, quite volatile.
That brings us back to the question we started with - about how accurate those forecasts turned out to be in the past. The answer is: very, very inaccurate.
The average forecasting error over the past two decades - in other words, the difference between the projection for the national debt five years hence and what actually happened - was just over 15% of GDP.
Let's put that into context. It's about £415bn. That is more than double the NHS budget; it's four HS2s (the whole thing, not just the London to Birmingham rump); it's nearly 70 aircraft carriers (we currently have two).
No one thinks you should pay all that much attention to forecasts of government debt five years hence. They are a useful signpost of fiscal policy, but hardly a biblical truth.
Yet since Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has said he'll do everything to avoid breaking his rules, the budget will end up paying a staggering amount of attention to the difference between these two highly unreliable numbers."
I've avoided creating new threads on Gaza up to now, and instead posted new developments on the main Palestinian thread but I think the following (which I've also posted there) deserves a thread of its own.
The US defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, said earlier today that more than 25,000 women and children had been killed by Israel since 7 October 2023, adding that Israel can and should do more to protect civilians.
During a US congressional hearing (ostensibly about his health), Austin was asked how many Palestinian women and children had been killed by Israel, Reuters reports.
He said: "It is over 25,000."
That's an absolutely astonishing figure, as it must be impossible to regard these as Hamas fighters. There will no doubt be thousand of innocent men killed as well, in addition to members of Hamas.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
