Is that your defense of her?
Not all are ‘particularly unsavory’, there’s degrees.
Do you know her?
Not really a defence, more just pointing out that all politicians are cunts that can’t be trusted
3 Likes
2 Likes
I just find it a bit bizarre to build a new modern one when you have already a beautiful ship with some history. A top modern ship is just not as prestigious, no matter how better facilities it has or how green it is.
In Norway and in Denmark, we have Royal yachts much older than Britannia and they are good enough for our royals, despite maybe not having the super modern sanitary facilities etc.
Our HMoMY Norge used to be MY Philante by the way, and was bought from the UK in the 30s
Because seriously, a yacht from the 30’s will always be more classy than something built now, because fine wine and so on. Sure, facilities aged, but that is a charm in itself.
Reading the wiki on Britannia, I am not convinced it can’t sail if refitted, and refitting it, while expensive, will still be far cheaper than building a new one (I spied on the Britannia wiki).
But maybe I am wrong. I just find it tasteless to build a new one when there is a much cooler ship with history available for use. I mean, unless the UK royals needs top modern facilities that Scandinavian royals feel no need for, then I don’t really get why the old prestigious Britannia can’t be refitted and sail again.
Modern mentality is to look at the refurb cost vs rebuild cost then running costs over the next 30 years and then destroy the old thing as it saves £3.80 overall.
My local council just moved from a 1960s building to a swanky new one as it made great sense on paper.
2 Likes
If these decisions placed an actual value on the environmental damage created, suddenly they wouldn’t make quite so much sense. The hidden cost is usually an environmental cost.
2 Likes
Worth bearing in mind that Britannia also brings in revenue and provides continuing employment. I believe it’s the top tourist attraction in Edinburgh.
Queen Mary in Longbeach is a tourist magnet, doesn’t surprise me.
The headline news though is always X jobs created in “regeneration” scheme. Never “Council really helps the local and worldwide environment by stifling the town’s economy”
Politics in all things, hateful.
“Solberg said it was inevitable that trade would be “more bureaucratic and less dynamic” than pre-Brexit arrangements, with the costs yet to be calculated. Without a veterinary agreement there would be more red tape for those exporting animal and plant products, she said, and the lack of mutual recognition of changes in the two sides’ regulatory frameworks would demand further talks in future.”
“David Henig, a former UK government trade official who is now director of the UK Trade Policy Project, said: “This UK-EEA free trade agreement provides better trading conditions than World Trade Organization terms, though with considerably more trade barriers when compared with the previous single market relationship.”
3 Likes
https://www.newstatesman.com/uk
The seats of Dominic Raab and Tim Farron are particularly in jeopardy although overall the changes are likely to favour the Conservatives.
I haven’t read the judgment yet but assuming the above is an accurate reflection it would be the first proper (judicial) finding of cronyism.
1 Like
What happens now then? Why haven’t the pair of them been sacked or resigned? Would be sound if ministers who broke the law faced actual consequences.
It’s important to differentiate between doing something illegal (criminal) and doing something unlawful (civil).
I’ll read the judgment later but judicial reviews are administrative actions in the civil courts. This is akin to a finding that a minister’s department acted in breach of contract. It’s normally only a resigning matter if there was dishonesty or concealment or something that would indicate an intent to abuse their position. Like I said, I need to read the judgment but from what I have previously understood there wasn’t much in it to say that Public First was not an appropriate company to do the work, only that time should have been taken to canvass other potential contractors in order to not only be fair but also to be seen to be fair. I expect that’s where the fault is but, as I say, I haven’t yet read the judgment.
1 Like
I’ve now read the judgment and here it is
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2021/1569.html&query=(Good)+AND+(law)+AND+(project)
The Claimants lost on the first two grounds (there were initially more grounds that they abandoned, such as claiming that the pandemic arriving in February was foreseeable!).
It succeeded on the final ground alone. It failed to establish actual bias (the judge held that there wasn’t any) but succeeded on establishing apparent bias.
This is basically that there is a prior connection between the parties that people might think was the reason for awarding the contract. The government failed to do any objective selection criteria setting out contemporaneously its reasons for appointing Public First. Had they done so the claim of apparent bias would also have failed, just like all the others.
One thing to note here is that Michael Gove isn’t mentioned. He had no involvement in this whatsoever so for the GLP to state that he broke the law is total bollocks. Same, incidentally, for Matt Hancock.
Still, the GLP continue to make a mint out of all this.
The PPE case is the main one. So far they’ve failed to expose any wrongdoing to the extent that they insinuate but in the particular instance of the PPE contracts there’s definitely scope for digging up real dirt.
So, Johnson flew to Cornwall to fight climate change 
2 Likes
When Obama took office in the depths of the GFC, he called for a meeting of Bank representatives.
They all flew to Washington in their private jets and stayed in luxury hotels, as the banking industry and the economy crumbled around them.