Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Another reason to lay Andy Burnham – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,773

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    This sentence pretty much sums things up.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    maaarsh said:

    Mechanical ventilation down AGAIN.

    Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.

    1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).

    Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
    There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
    Let's face it, all these old codgers were going to die pretty soon anyway.
    They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash.
    Surely you can't be serious? 😉
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,702
    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.

    Good post Malcolm. @MoonRabbit if you want to understand why many of us Scots want Independence, the attached post may help explain.
    https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/how-i-hoped/
  • TimSTimS Posts: 1,773
    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Drakeford won one election in Wales, a country that has not voted anything other than Labour in a national election for the last 100 years. Does not mean he would have any appeal whatsover in England.

    In fact the Welsh Conservatives also had their best ever performance at a Senedd election last year against Drakeford Labour. Burnham on the other hand won even Tory Trafford in the last Greater Manchester Mayoral election.

    While his northern accent may not be universally popular it is more popular in the redwall, the key swing region for Labour to prevent another Tory majority

    Although Trafford these days is not really Tory. It's a Labour council and there has been an influx of professional, middle-class types who (a) have found Chorlton and Didsbury too expensive and like the housing stock, particularly in the north of the borough (b) more importantly, it still retains the 11+, which is a big draw and which the Labour Council has smartly kept on - the 11+ used to be the defining issue in Trafford elections.
    In fact. The Tory borough in GM is now Bolton. Has the safest Tory MP in GM too. Which is quite a turn around.
    Yes, it is quite a shift and is still continuing. As @Gary_Burton said, there is an argument for saying Brady loses at the next election (although my feeling is he will cling on, although I haven't looked at the new boundaries). Perhaps what is more interesting is that what happens to the Brexit vote next time - seats like Wigan, Makerfield, Ashton-U-L, Stalybridge, Worsley and Oldham East have a Brexit vote that is essentially the Labour majority, give or take a couple of hundred votes. It will depend on how the Tory party realigns - and the next leader will be critical here - to its RW voters.
    I think boundary changes are quite bad for the Tories in greater Manchester (although Brady's seat is unchanged) as they dilute a lot of the Tory strength in their new seats as well as target seats. I wouldn't be totally confident of Labour gaining Leigh at the next election especially if there's a Tory recovery nationally but I can't see the Tories gaining anything they didn't in 2019 as Labour did very well across the whole of Greater Manchester with the exception of Bolton in last year's council elections. Labour's local election results in Salford in particular were extremely strong, making inroads into Tory middle class areas like Worsley as well.
    Yes, I haven't looked at the boundary changes although, and this is maybe simplistic, is that, if the Tories lose Tory areas in some seats, they gain them in others. I would say there is a slight danger in directly read across strength in local councils to MPs. as - for some reason - you don't tend to get the more radical shifts you see in other areas. So the Tories have no chance of capturing Stockport BC but have two of the constituencies. Likewise, In Tameside, ditto on the council but they are within striking distance in two of the (old) seats.
    Hazel Grove is very weird in particular, the constituency itself has trended heavily towards the Tories but the Lib Dems have virtually all the seats at the local level. Clearly a lot of voters vote LD at a local level there and Tory in general elections.
    On current EMA shares (Con 33 Lab 38 LD 11), according to electoral calculus, the LIbDems get 11 seats on current boundaries (Labour 22 short of an overall majority) and 19 on the new proposed boundaries (Labour 34 short of an overall majority)!

    The LibDem gains are all from Tories - which makes the above figures look odd.

    Camb S
    Carshalton
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Esher
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Lewes
    St Ives
    Wimbledon
    Winchester





    I don't think the libdems will win carshalton: it's a classic "once the MP has gone, the constituency returns to type" seat
    Maybe they never lost Carshalton:
    https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/carshalton_and_wallington_constituency

    Or even Sutton:
    https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/sutton_and_cheam_constituency
    They have a very energetic candidate, Bobby Dean, in Carshalton. I think he has a good chance.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,178
    Applicant said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    maaarsh said:

    Mechanical ventilation down AGAIN.

    Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.

    1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).

    Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
    There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
    Let's face it, all these old codgers were going to die pretty soon anyway.
    They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash.
    Surely you can't be serious? 😉
    DCMS
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523
    Alistair said:

    Ah, I see "no losing Dem candidate has accepted the Electoral college result in the last X years" is a lie being promulgated on Twitter as fact by the American right wing to act as a shield for Trump stagong a coup. Of course, of course.

    https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/1480199672526422018?t=1-831EI1e7A3JpQbAhQ0Kw&s=19

    "I am sure that someone will post Hillary Clinton’s later remarks about the election being “illegitimate”. This was unwise and in my view unwarranted. But it doesn’t change this: her formal concession"

    Mmmmm, ok - so she claimed that the 2016 election was illegitimate but that doesn't matter, the key thing is she gave a formal concession speech

    Right.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,019
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    It was the euro-sceptic death squadders (to quote Peter Oborne) who did for Gentleman John. Of course, they destroyed plenty of Tory prime ministers thereafter (and probably haven't finished yet) so the pattern is perfectly discernible.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,019

    Omnium said:

    On Topic Andy Burnham miles ahead as most popular politician

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Andy_Burnham

    Place your bets!
    Still not necessarily a great bet as SKS won't allow him a seat as long as he has a hole in his arse.

    Due to him being popular and SKS 3rd worst with only Blair and Corbyn behind
    I was just alluding to a very long lost and forgotten C4 programme.

    I've opposed Burnham in a reasonable sum, but I'm now trying to back him in a small way just because he's tieing up capital.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,406

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?

    All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
    Yes it's weird that the media, and to be fair also a lot of politicians and medics, treat the issue so warily, as though they don't want to say people are wrong, but instead we must try and understand their views.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523
    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Drakeford won one election in Wales, a country that has not voted anything other than Labour in a national election for the last 100 years. Does not mean he would have any appeal whatsover in England.

    In fact the Welsh Conservatives also had their best ever performance at a Senedd election last year against Drakeford Labour. Burnham on the other hand won even Tory Trafford in the last Greater Manchester Mayoral election.

    While his northern accent may not be universally popular it is more popular in the redwall, the key swing region for Labour to prevent another Tory majority

    Although Trafford these days is not really Tory. It's a Labour council and there has been an influx of professional, middle-class types who (a) have found Chorlton and Didsbury too expensive and like the housing stock, particularly in the north of the borough (b) more importantly, it still retains the 11+, which is a big draw and which the Labour Council has smartly kept on - the 11+ used to be the defining issue in Trafford elections.
    In fact. The Tory borough in GM is now Bolton. Has the safest Tory MP in GM too. Which is quite a turn around.
    Yes, it is quite a shift and is still continuing. As @Gary_Burton said, there is an argument for saying Brady loses at the next election (although my feeling is he will cling on, although I haven't looked at the new boundaries). Perhaps what is more interesting is that what happens to the Brexit vote next time - seats like Wigan, Makerfield, Ashton-U-L, Stalybridge, Worsley and Oldham East have a Brexit vote that is essentially the Labour majority, give or take a couple of hundred votes. It will depend on how the Tory party realigns - and the next leader will be critical here - to its RW voters.
    I think boundary changes are quite bad for the Tories in greater Manchester (although Brady's seat is unchanged) as they dilute a lot of the Tory strength in their new seats as well as target seats. I wouldn't be totally confident of Labour gaining Leigh at the next election especially if there's a Tory recovery nationally but I can't see the Tories gaining anything they didn't in 2019 as Labour did very well across the whole of Greater Manchester with the exception of Bolton in last year's council elections. Labour's local election results in Salford in particular were extremely strong, making inroads into Tory middle class areas like Worsley as well.
    Yes, I haven't looked at the boundary changes although, and this is maybe simplistic, is that, if the Tories lose Tory areas in some seats, they gain them in others. I would say there is a slight danger in directly read across strength in local councils to MPs. as - for some reason - you don't tend to get the more radical shifts you see in other areas. So the Tories have no chance of capturing Stockport BC but have two of the constituencies. Likewise, In Tameside, ditto on the council but they are within striking distance in two of the (old) seats.
    Hazel Grove is very weird in particular, the constituency itself has trended heavily towards the Tories but the Lib Dems have virtually all the seats at the local level. Clearly a lot of voters vote LD at a local level there and Tory in general elections.
    On current EMA shares (Con 33 Lab 38 LD 11), according to electoral calculus, the LIbDems get 11 seats on current boundaries (Labour 22 short of an overall majority) and 19 on the new proposed boundaries (Labour 34 short of an overall majority)!

    The LibDem gains are all from Tories - which makes the above figures look odd.

    Camb S
    Carshalton
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Esher
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Lewes
    St Ives
    Wimbledon
    Winchester





    I don't think the libdems will win carshalton: it's a classic "once the MP has gone, the constituency returns to type" seat
    Maybe they never lost Carshalton:
    https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/carshalton_and_wallington_constituency

    Or even Sutton:
    https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/sutton_and_cheam_constituency
    Maybe Donald Trump has been advising the Liberal Democrats on their concession strategy.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,178

    On Topic Andy Burnham miles ahead as most popular politician

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Andy_Burnham

    Bonkers list. 8 and 9 are Prescott and Blair. Jezza is 13th.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,004
    IshmaelZ said:

    Applicant said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    maaarsh said:

    Mechanical ventilation down AGAIN.

    Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.

    1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).

    Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
    There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
    Let's face it, all these old codgers were going to die pretty soon anyway.
    They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash.
    Surely you can't be serious? 😉
    DCMS
    David Cameron Mostly Shite!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163
    TimS said:

    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Drakeford won one election in Wales, a country that has not voted anything other than Labour in a national election for the last 100 years. Does not mean he would have any appeal whatsover in England.

    In fact the Welsh Conservatives also had their best ever performance at a Senedd election last year against Drakeford Labour. Burnham on the other hand won even Tory Trafford in the last Greater Manchester Mayoral election.

    While his northern accent may not be universally popular it is more popular in the redwall, the key swing region for Labour to prevent another Tory majority

    Although Trafford these days is not really Tory. It's a Labour council and there has been an influx of professional, middle-class types who (a) have found Chorlton and Didsbury too expensive and like the housing stock, particularly in the north of the borough (b) more importantly, it still retains the 11+, which is a big draw and which the Labour Council has smartly kept on - the 11+ used to be the defining issue in Trafford elections.
    In fact. The Tory borough in GM is now Bolton. Has the safest Tory MP in GM too. Which is quite a turn around.
    Yes, it is quite a shift and is still continuing. As @Gary_Burton said, there is an argument for saying Brady loses at the next election (although my feeling is he will cling on, although I haven't looked at the new boundaries). Perhaps what is more interesting is that what happens to the Brexit vote next time - seats like Wigan, Makerfield, Ashton-U-L, Stalybridge, Worsley and Oldham East have a Brexit vote that is essentially the Labour majority, give or take a couple of hundred votes. It will depend on how the Tory party realigns - and the next leader will be critical here - to its RW voters.
    I think boundary changes are quite bad for the Tories in greater Manchester (although Brady's seat is unchanged) as they dilute a lot of the Tory strength in their new seats as well as target seats. I wouldn't be totally confident of Labour gaining Leigh at the next election especially if there's a Tory recovery nationally but I can't see the Tories gaining anything they didn't in 2019 as Labour did very well across the whole of Greater Manchester with the exception of Bolton in last year's council elections. Labour's local election results in Salford in particular were extremely strong, making inroads into Tory middle class areas like Worsley as well.
    Yes, I haven't looked at the boundary changes although, and this is maybe simplistic, is that, if the Tories lose Tory areas in some seats, they gain them in others. I would say there is a slight danger in directly read across strength in local councils to MPs. as - for some reason - you don't tend to get the more radical shifts you see in other areas. So the Tories have no chance of capturing Stockport BC but have two of the constituencies. Likewise, In Tameside, ditto on the council but they are within striking distance in two of the (old) seats.
    Hazel Grove is very weird in particular, the constituency itself has trended heavily towards the Tories but the Lib Dems have virtually all the seats at the local level. Clearly a lot of voters vote LD at a local level there and Tory in general elections.
    On current EMA shares (Con 33 Lab 38 LD 11), according to electoral calculus, the LIbDems get 11 seats on current boundaries (Labour 22 short of an overall majority) and 19 on the new proposed boundaries (Labour 34 short of an overall majority)!

    The LibDem gains are all from Tories - which makes the above figures look odd.

    Camb S
    Carshalton
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Esher
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Lewes
    St Ives
    Wimbledon
    Winchester





    I don't think the libdems will win carshalton: it's a classic "once the MP has gone, the constituency returns to type" seat
    Maybe they never lost Carshalton:
    https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/carshalton_and_wallington_constituency

    Or even Sutton:
    https://www.suttonlibdems.org.uk/sutton_and_cheam_constituency
    They have a very energetic candidate, Bobby Dean, in Carshalton. I think he has a good chance.
    Someone just needs to tell the person in charge of their website that Tom Brake isn't the MP any more.

    The page about Mr Gladstone needs taking down too, ideally.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,969

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523

    MrEd said:

    I thought this might be of interest for some reason: https://rs.n1info.com/english/news/n1-gains-access-to-fake-pcr-test-document/

    We had friends who went on holiday to Italy who were told it was €30 for a PCR test and €50 if you wanted to decide what the result was. I suspect this is not that uncommon.
    and I am sure that Novax's PCR is 100% genuine, but it might suggest why the Australian authorities might require more evidence to be certain.
    I would if I was them but it's turning into a bit of a debacle for them
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,969
    edited January 9

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
    'Good post Malcolm. @MoonRabbit if you want to understand why many of us Scots want Independence, the attached post may help explain.
    https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/how-i-hoped/'

    If the current Covid situation proves anything it most certainly proves most real decisions affecting Scotland are no longer all made at Westminster
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,702

    Thanks for the books advice everyone. Much appreciated.

    A shame you are not nearer Wigtown or Hay on Wye. Maybe a long weekend with boxes of books in the back of the car?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,178

    IshmaelZ said:

    Applicant said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    maaarsh said:

    Mechanical ventilation down AGAIN.

    Starting to look like the increase in deaths (by actual date running average now 140 per day from 110) is genuinely an artefact of massive case numbers leading to other deaths getting called covid, because the number of covid patients in intensive care is even lower than November when we had lower deaths numbers.

    1500 people die every day, so if 5% of the population has covid there's scope for 75 deaths a day to be called covid without causing any excess death (obviously before adjusting for ages etc).

    Yes I've been thinking that, I don't know how to express it but 'incidental deaths' ?
    There are also going to be a ton of "contributory COVID", by which I mean people who were going to die soon anyway, where a nasty viral infection was the final straw.
    Let's face it, all these old codgers were going to die pretty soon anyway.
    They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say let 'em crash.
    Surely you can't be serious? 😉
    DCMS
    David Cameron Mostly Shite!
    Mostly?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,969
    edited January 9
    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    Unless Blair then led Labour back to power in 2001
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 4,631
    glw said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?

    All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
    Yes it's weird that the media, and to be fair also a lot of politicians and medics, treat the issue so warily, as though they don't want to say people are wrong, but instead we must try and understand their views.
    because for most people who choose not to get vaccinated it isnt a medical or science issue .thats the mistake or mindset of the conventional. Its a personal issue sometimes regarding a state/individual issue or the fundamental dislike over having artificial bodies within the body.That is something you cannot debate is wrong or right as it is a matter of the soul and rights of the individual.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,775

    Thanks for the books advice everyone. Much appreciated.

    A shame you are not nearer Wigtown or Hay on Wye. Maybe a long weekend with boxes of books in the back of the car?
    Where do you think a lot of them came from! ;)

    (We did part of our honeymoon at Wigtown, and went back to celebrate our tenth anniversary at the same B&B. We stayed at Hay on Wye a few weeks before the little 'un was born, in a place with a pool that Mrs J could relax in.)
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 6,268
    I'm not sure even TSE is being serious in promoting Drakeford as next Labour leader.

    I also think there will be pressure on him to open up fully within a couple of weeks unless things are very bad.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,025
    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    I'm not sure that when presented with "Vaccines are a conspiracy between ZOG and the mobile phone companies to make all men of race X impotent", anyone is going to do more than laugh.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,523
    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    Unless Blair then led Labour back to power in 2001
    I'm not sure Blair would have got it apart from the obvious question of whether his role (if any) in any 1992-7 Labour Government would have counted against him.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163
    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    And if they had a full-scale televised debate, they'd have to invite Laurence Fox, and then most people would probably come away thinking "There must be something in it, because they have the support of a senior police officer".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,025
    glw said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?

    All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
    Yes it's weird that the media, and to be fair also a lot of politicians and medics, treat the issue so warily, as though they don't want to say people are wrong, but instead we must try and understand their views.
    Bit like when people dress up their fascism in an accent, some foreign language and a religion - "We must try and understand"

  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    I'm not sure that when presented with "Vaccines are a conspiracy between ZOG and the mobile phone companies to make all men of race X impotent", anyone is going to do more than laugh.
    I didn't think Donald Trump would end up in the White House, either.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,004
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    I'm not sure that when presented with "Vaccines are a conspiracy between ZOG and the mobile phone companies to make all men of race X impotent", anyone is going to do more than laugh.
    I didn't think Donald Trump would end up in the White House, either.
    Hopefully he won’t.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163

    glw said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?

    All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
    Yes it's weird that the media, and to be fair also a lot of politicians and medics, treat the issue so warily, as though they don't want to say people are wrong, but instead we must try and understand their views.
    Bit like when people dress up their fascism in an accent, some foreign language and a religion - "We must try and understand"

    Silly of them, when they could dress it up in a Union Jack.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,752
    edited January 9
    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163
    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    I'm not sure that when presented with "Vaccines are a conspiracy between ZOG and the mobile phone companies to make all men of race X impotent", anyone is going to do more than laugh.
    I didn't think Donald Trump would end up in the White House, either.
    Hopefully he won’t.
    I meant the first time.

    But as you imply, no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the electorate.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    Chris said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?

    All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
    Yes it's weird that the media, and to be fair also a lot of politicians and medics, treat the issue so warily, as though they don't want to say people are wrong, but instead we must try and understand their views.
    Bit like when people dress up their fascism in an accent, some foreign language and a religion - "We must try and understand"

    Silly of them, when they could dress it up in a Union Jack.
    Not really. Fascism has never been very successful in the UK. Too antithetical to British cultural traits.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,801

    Very excited to hear the Jezbollah is going to found Peace and Justice as a party. Off go the intellectual stars of the Labour movement like Sultana and Webbe and Tarry and Ding Dong Burgon, all the hard left vote for them and collectively they win 12,000 votes at the next election and disappear forever.

    Are ALL creeds, colours and religions invited?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,969
    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
    Indeed, Brown may then have beaten PM Howard in 2010. Though again Cameron might have won anyway in 2015 as Blair might have won anyway in 2001
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
    Fair - except that there really was no plausible route to the Tories winning in 2005.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,969
    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
    Fair - except that there really was no plausible route to the Tories winning in 2005.
    In voteshare terms at least Howard was closer to Blair in 2005 than Kinnock was to Major in 1992
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 16,938
    darkage said:

    Book Review - the every, dave eggers.

    Eggers creates a fictional but highly familiar world where digital surveillance, in combination with monopoly capitalism, lead to the end of human freedom.
    It is based on the exploration of a problem that the rise of technology has bought to the fore, that people will willingly cede freedom in favour of security,
    and speculates on where this might lead.
    It is the successor to a book published in 2013, the circle, which explores similar themes and which is worth reading first, but this is not necessary to appreciate the Every.
    Like most works of dystopian fiction it is not perfect and you cannot enjoy it if you keep looking for problems with the technological scenarios he presents.

    Choice passage:
    "We sit in constant judgment of each other, and thus we are a species in decine. nothing great can be created
    in such a climmate. An authentic human life cannot be lived this way. We become more tame and fearful every year, every day, and every hour brings another thing we cannot do or cannot say,
    and in all cases the penalty for violators is that they are thrown away - a kind of digital capital punishment. Every generation purports to be more emphatic, and yet every generation is
    less forgiving. And of course, with every coming year, technology ensures no errors go unrecorded."

    "That was a party political broadcast from the Conservative Party."
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    Ah, I see "no losing Dem candidate has accepted the Electoral college result in the last X years" is a lie being promulgated on Twitter as fact by the American right wing to act as a shield for Trump stagong a coup. Of course, of course.

    https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/1480199672526422018?t=1-831EI1e7A3JpQbAhQ0Kw&s=19

    "I am sure that someone will post Hillary Clinton’s later remarks about the election being “illegitimate”. This was unwise and in my view unwarranted. But it doesn’t change this: her formal concession"

    Mmmmm, ok - so she claimed that the 2016 election was illegitimate but that doesn't matter, the key thing is she gave a formal concession speech

    Right.
    She accepted a peaceful transfer of power. That is what matters. That is not what the Republicans did. All the whataboutism by fascist sympathizers doesn't change that.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,702

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
    I agree with all of that, especially the last line that summed the problem up nicely. But if that answers a question, what question is it answering? Is the problem England control, as in to take back control. Or the problem is actually money - because power is wealth, wealth is power. Or the problem English wealth as an agent in Scotland?

    If the issue is the third one, foreign capital as agent in Scotland, what on earth is the solution?

    In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories, businesses, and all the other industries people work in?

    If there is factory in Scotland and one in England and one to close, which one is closed if owners are English? I’m from Yorkshire, my dad from Yorkshire, I live in property he owns in Chelsea whilst locals in ‘landan’ struggle now to buy property in London. Who owns the land in Scotland now, who owns freehold homes and businesses are on after independence?

    Personally I would like to see fairness in this world, and to be in a fair place, a free place, is having that financial clout to come and compete. Do you see my points?

    As far as I know, this is not in any party’s manifesto, but I believe that that land should be held by the nation, for the benefit of the nation. There should be a land rental tax, with maybe a 1 acre tax free allowance. There should be a significant discount for productive agricultural land. Land held for sporting purposes, e.g. shooting or golf, would not receive the discount. Land held in land banks by developers or supermarkets would incur a surcharge.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,729

    Very excited to hear the Jezbollah is going to found Peace and Justice as a party. Off go the intellectual stars of the Labour movement like Sultana and Webbe and Tarry and Ding Dong Burgon, all the hard left vote for them and collectively they win 12,000 votes at the next election and disappear forever.

    Are ALL creeds, colours and religions invited?
    Depends on whether they're happy to keep sharing a stage with certain flavours of person as "I'm an anti-racist me" Jeremy has done
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,025
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    I'm not sure that when presented with "Vaccines are a conspiracy between ZOG and the mobile phone companies to make all men of race X impotent", anyone is going to do more than laugh.
    I didn't think Donald Trump would end up in the White House, either.
    Yes - but the part of the problem was he was not challenged to a remarkable degree.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,913
    edited January 9
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Unexciting

    But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fund­raisers which the duke attended."
    Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
    Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
    I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.

    Centrist or Royalty, shrug

    Socialist, hangings too good for them

    You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
    Not shrug, I yield to no one in my contempt for Andrew. Mandelson is a smarmy creep but his interests do not relevantly overlap with Epstein's afaik. But I am afraid that, yes, I rank condoners of political murder, and racists, well below paedophiles operating in the age group Epstein was operating in.
    Epstein was a colossal procurer as well as a predator. I am in no way saying anything about Mr Mandelson, but it is not far-fetched at all to believe Epstein might have sought to provide young boys for influential "punters" who were that way inclined. In fact I'd be surprised if Epstein never did this
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163
    Aslan said:

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?

    All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
    Yes it's weird that the media, and to be fair also a lot of politicians and medics, treat the issue so warily, as though they don't want to say people are wrong, but instead we must try and understand their views.
    Bit like when people dress up their fascism in an accent, some foreign language and a religion - "We must try and understand"

    Silly of them, when they could dress it up in a Union Jack.
    Not really. Fascism has never been very successful in the UK. Too antithetical to British cultural traits.
    No, thankfully never very successful. But has still done best dressed in a Union Jack.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 8,994
    edited January 9

    Very excited to hear the Jezbollah is going to found Peace and Justice as a party. Off go the intellectual stars of the Labour movement like Sultana and Webbe and Tarry and Ding Dong Burgon, all the hard left vote for them and collectively they win 12,000 votes at the next election and disappear forever.

    Where is this news?

    Can't see it on the twitter or website for the Peace and Justice project he started, nor on his own twitter.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,729

    Very excited to hear the Jezbollah is going to found Peace and Justice as a party. Off go the intellectual stars of the Labour movement like Sultana and Webbe and Tarry and Ding Dong Burgon, all the hard left vote for them and collectively they win 12,000 votes at the next election and disappear forever.

    Where is this news?

    Can't see it on the twitter or website for the Peace and Justice project he started, nor on his own twitter.
    Reported on the Torygraph that he's looking at it having accepted he will never again be a Labour MP
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,752
    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
    Fair - except that there really was no plausible route to the Tories winning in 2005.
    Though. Had Blair handed over to Brown prior to that election, there may have been.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,702
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
    'Good post Malcolm. @MoonRabbit if you want to understand why many of us Scots want Independence, the attached post may help explain.
    https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/how-i-hoped/'
    If the current Covid situation proves anything it most certainly proves most real decisions affecting Scotland are no longer all made at Westminster

    But they are limited (for better or worse) by lack of control of the purse strings. In this case, I think for better, but that’s not the point. Cf EU/Brexit.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,729
    dixiedean said:

    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
    Fair - except that there really was no plausible route to the Tories winning in 2005.
    Though. Had Blair handed over to Brown prior to that election, there may have been.
    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" Mad Frankie Howerd asked. "No" said the electorate. Don't see how that no changes so massively under Brown
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,025
    Chris said:

    Aslan said:

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?

    All we get is that "Anti-vaxers don't want the vaccinations. No, we can't actually say what the anti-vax arguments are."
    Yes it's weird that the media, and to be fair also a lot of politicians and medics, treat the issue so warily, as though they don't want to say people are wrong, but instead we must try and understand their views.
    Bit like when people dress up their fascism in an accent, some foreign language and a religion - "We must try and understand"

    Silly of them, when they could dress it up in a Union Jack.
    Not really. Fascism has never been very successful in the UK. Too antithetical to British cultural traits.
    No, thankfully never very successful. But has still done best dressed in a Union Jack.
    If it is still available, the "unFascist Britain" thread on the USENET board soc.history.what-if would be of interest. It was an attempt by some quite expert amateur historians of the period to come up with a version of Fascism that would actually have caught on the in Britain.

    Essentially - "Britain isn't Fascist, good lord no, Sir. Now have you got your Log Book? Hmmmm. Hmmmm, seems reasonably in order. Oh dear, you seem to have a some issues with your Patriotism score. Perhaps a spell working on the Rockall Airship base would help Sir improve that. Sgt. Johnston? Where are you? Got another one here..."
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    dixiedean said:

    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
    Fair - except that there really was no plausible route to the Tories winning in 2005.
    Though. Had Blair handed over to Brown prior to that election, there may have been.
    From 165 seats?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,550
    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Unexciting

    But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fund­raisers which the duke attended."
    Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
    Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
    I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.

    Centrist or Royalty, shrug

    Socialist, hangings too good for them

    You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
    Not shrug, I yield to no one in my contempt for Andrew. Mandelson is a smarmy creep but his interests do not relevantly overlap with Epstein's afaik. But I am afraid that, yes, I rank condoners of political murder, and racists, well below paedophiles operating in the age group Epstein was operating in.
    Epstein was a colossal procurer as well as a predator. I am in no way saying anything about Mr Mandelson, but it is not far-fetched at all to believe Epstein might have sought to provide young boys for influential "punters" who were that way inclined. In fact I'd be surprised if Epstein never did this
    Then where are these boys? Why aren't they queueing up for compensation? Why haven't they been mentioned in any of the witness accounts? With no evidence, this is just a crude smear.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,004
    edited January 9
    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    I'm not sure that when presented with "Vaccines are a conspiracy between ZOG and the mobile phone companies to make all men of race X impotent", anyone is going to do more than laugh.
    I didn't think Donald Trump would end up in the White House, either.
    Hopefully he won’t.
    I meant the first time.

    But as you imply, no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the electorate.
    I’m early on in reading Wildland by Osnos, which paints a picture of the changes in the US over the past two decades, during part of which the author was away in China. It would be premature to recommend, but the story emerging is of a counter-reaction to the inequitable way in which the benefits of economic growth have fallen over recent years. When the story of Brexit comes to be written, I expect it may be similar. The irony is that in both cases those who have lost out from the current economic settlement have expressed their protest voting for right wing parties that contain many of its architects (whilst at the same time changing their nature).
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    I'm not sure that when presented with "Vaccines are a conspiracy between ZOG and the mobile phone companies to make all men of race X impotent", anyone is going to do more than laugh.
    I didn't think Donald Trump would end up in the White House, either.
    Yes - but the part of the problem was he was not challenged to a remarkable degree.
    Really? I seem to remember him being challenged from right, left and centre continuously for the last 7 years or so. And still he seems to be in the running for a second term!

    You'd do better to try to blame the unpopularity of Clinton, at least for his initial election. But huge stupidity on the part of the electorate was a necessary condition, in any case.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,550
    edited January 9

    Thanks for the books advice everyone. Much appreciated.

    A shame you are not nearer Wigtown or Hay on Wye. Maybe a long weekend with boxes of books in the back of the car?
    Where do you think a lot of them came from! ;)

    (We did part of our honeymoon at Wigtown, and went back to celebrate our tenth anniversary at the same B&B. We stayed at Hay on Wye a few weeks before the little 'un was born, in a place with a pool that Mrs J could relax in.)
    Alternative book musings. Catalogue them. The lazy way to do this for recent books is to scan the ISBN barcodes. Hand-held scanners are cheap but there are doubtless free mobile phone apps. The codes can then be matched against downloaded ISBN lists, but again there are doubtless apps that will do this for you. Then check if any titles are worth anything. Any older books without barcodes will more likely fall into this category but you will have to type them yourself!

    ETA if you do this, please write a detailed account that I can follow when I deal with my own books (and DVDs).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,752
    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
    Fair - except that there really was no plausible route to the Tories winning in 2005.
    Though. Had Blair handed over to Brown prior to that election, there may have been.
    From 165 seats?
    Yeah. Fair enough.
    All counter factual scenarios require a little counter the facts. Pushing it a bit maybe.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,004

    Very excited to hear the Jezbollah is going to found Peace and Justice as a party. Off go the intellectual stars of the Labour movement like Sultana and Webbe and Tarry and Ding Dong Burgon, all the hard left vote for them and collectively they win 12,000 votes at the next election and disappear forever.

    The risk to Labour is that 12,000 is an underestimate. And a big incentive for their funding to come from shady sources opposed to their aims.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,729

    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
    'Good post Malcolm. @MoonRabbit if you want to understand why many of us Scots want Independence, the attached post may help explain.
    https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/12/29/how-i-hoped/'
    If the current Covid situation proves anything it most certainly proves most real decisions affecting Scotland are no longer all made at Westminster
    But they are limited (for better or worse) by lack of control of the purse strings. In this case, I think for better, but that’s not the point. Cf EU/Brexit.

    An interesting article though and author too. Demonstrates that independence = / = the SNP.

    The simple solution to resolve all these issues is a new constitution. The problem with the simple solution is that the UK is as divided now as it has ever been...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,163
    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    IanB2 said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    glw said:

    It is interesting how very few in the media are prepared to actually dig into the anti-vax arguments. Almost as if they were religious beliefs, which it would be rude to challenge.

    I've heard and read the views of loads of anti-vaxxers, the vaccine skeptics, and the vaccine hesitant, and not once have I thought they've got a point, or a view that should be respected even if I disagree with it. Invariably they believe some absolute nonsense that is demonstrably false. This is not an issue where there are two opposing but broadly rational views. One side is basically nuts.
    Indeed. But why not put a scientist up to debate with a selection of the loons, record the result?
    Most people (quite possibly including BBC science journalists) would probably come away thinking "There are arguments on both sides".
    I'm not sure that when presented with "Vaccines are a conspiracy between ZOG and the mobile phone companies to make all men of race X impotent", anyone is going to do more than laugh.
    I didn't think Donald Trump would end up in the White House, either.
    Hopefully he won’t.
    I meant the first time.

    But as you imply, no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the electorate.
    I’m early on in reading Wildland by Osnos, which paints a picture of the changes in the US over the past two decades, during part of which the author was away in China. It would be premature to recommend, but the story emerging is of a counter-reaction to the inequitable way in which the benefits of economic growth have fallen over recent years. When the story of Brexit comes to be written, I expect it may be similar. The irony is that in both cases those who have lost out from the current economic settlement have expressed their protest voting for right wing parties that contain many of its architects (whilst at the same time changing their nature).
    But stupid decisions don't stop being stupid just because there are reasons why people made them.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,095
    YOU REDS
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
    I agree with all of that, especially the last line that summed the problem up nicely. But if that answers a question, what question is it answering? Is the problem England control, as in to take back control. Or the problem is actually money - because power is wealth, wealth is power. Or the problem English wealth as an agent in Scotland?

    If the issue is the third one, foreign capital as agent in Scotland, what on earth is the solution?

    In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories, businesses, and all the other industries people work in?

    If there is factory in Scotland and one in England and one to close, which one is closed if owners are English? I’m from Yorkshire, my dad from Yorkshire, I live in property he owns in Chelsea whilst locals in ‘landan’ struggle now to buy property in London. Who owns the land in Scotland now, who owns freehold homes and businesses are on after independence?

    Personally I would like to see fairness in this world, and to be in a fair place, a free place, is having that financial clout to come and compete. Do you see my points?
    As far as I know, this is not in any party’s manifesto, but I believe that that land should be held by the nation, for the benefit of the nation. There should be a land rental tax, with maybe a 1 acre tax free allowance. There should be a significant discount for productive agricultural land. Land held for sporting purposes, e.g. shooting or golf, would not receive the discount. Land held in land banks by developers or supermarkets would incur a surcharge.

    I think the thread here has gone a bit wrong hard to see who is saying what to who. Probably my bad I was in a car on a phone when I typed a lot in. So I’ll post fresh in the new thread. See you there 🙂
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,025
    dixiedean said:
    The IKEA case is interesting - they apparently pay well and have relatively generous benefits for the type of work. What they are doing is reducing it statutory for those who aren't vaccinated.
  • dixiedean said:

    Applicant said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    It says to me that the party are not ready to dethrone him... yet

    It's not the wider party he needs to worry about...
    No, its the tory voters who sit on their hands in May.

    If enough of them do so. He's out imho.
    Some of us wont just be sitting on hands. We will be voting LD or even Labour to try and put maximum pressure on the Clown to quit
    I believe you voted LD in 2019, so in polling terms you count as a LD not a Tory voter now
    Good memory, but not out of enthusiasm for the LDs but on the basis I believe everyone should vote. I will vote LD or possibly even Labour this time on the same basis and will encourage anyone I can to do the same. Johnson is a disaster for the Tory Party and he needs to be ousted ASAP. You perhaps need to make the same calculation if you do not want to see the Conservative Party out of office for a generation. Johnson would show no loyalty to you and you should show none to him.
    On historical precedent the Tories are heading out of power anyway after over 10 years in power.

    The only PM who won a general election in the last 100 years after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992. It is possible Sunak could scrape home against Starmer as Major did against Kinnock. However by 1997 the Tories were trounced by a landslide and out of power for a generation anyway
    The Tories were trounced in1997 because of Major, not in spite of him (and of course because of Blair being electable enough to take advantage of Major's numerous failings). Major won in 1992 on the basis of not being Thatcher and not being Kinnock. But he then suffered a whole succession of mostly self inflicted wounds which resulted in the 97 defeat.

    I have no idea whether Sunak or any other non-Johnson Tory leader would be similarly inept but the idea that the Tories will lose in 2024 simply because of how long they have been in power is rubbish. They will lose with Johnson in charge because of his failings and ineptitude. That does not necessarily apply to some of the other contenders.
    No they were not trounced because of Major I can assure you of that. Indeed my very first Tory canvass was in 1997 in Tonbridge, I particularly recall one lady saying 'I like the man but not the party.' The idea Portillo or Redwood or even Heseltine would have done any better against Blair is absurd.

    Major did however get a personal vote in 1992 to some extent (though Heseltine would likely also have beaten Kinnock) while Thatcher would probably have narrowly lost to Kinnock. The Tories' tax bombshell campaign also helped.

    You can normally stretch the elastic for 1 more win after 10 years in power in a western democracy, see the Canadian Liberals in 2004 too or the French centre right in 2007 or the CDU in 2017 but no more than that.

    It might actually have been better for the Tories to lose the 1992 election, they would not have then seen thousands of Tory councillors lose their seats from 1993-1996 nor over 150 Tory MPs lose their seats in 1997. Heseltine or Portillo might even have beaten PM Kinnock in 1997. However it was better for the country that Major beat Kinnock and Blair then created New Labour
    Nah this is just wishful thinking by you. Major lost because of the mistakes Major made. To say no one else would have done better is ridiculous because that implies they would have made the same mistakes.

    Major was popular in 92 - in part because of who he wasn't and in part because he was mostly an unknown. He lost so badly in 97 because of the actions he had taken in the previous 5 years (and in pushing Thatcher to take the UK into the ERM when he was Chancellor). Portillo, Redwood and Heseltine may have made different mistakes - they may not even have beaten Kinnock in 92 - but Major lost in 97 because of who he was and what he had done, not just because of the passage of time which is what your original post was claiming.
    Heseltine would also have kept the UK in the ERM and suffered Black Wednesday. Thatcher would probably narrowly have lost even in 1992 but then Kinnock would have suffered Black Wednesday, hence my original premise holds. 1992 was a very pyrrhic victory for the Tories
    As you say, for the Tories, it would have been far better to have the lost 1992 election - narrowly - and then let Kinnock deal with matters. I suspect that we might have had an inverse of what happens namely the Tories in power from 1997 to 2010 at least.
    A similar argument could be made had the Tories won in 2005. Not only the GFC, but Iraq going really tits up too.
    We could have had Labour back for the last decade.
    Fair - except that there really was no plausible route to the Tories winning in 2005.
    Though. Had Blair handed over to Brown prior to that election, there may have been.
    "Are you thinking what we're thinking?" Mad Frankie Howerd asked. "No" said the electorate. Don't see how that no changes so massively under Brown
    Though it is worth remembering more in England voted for Something Of the Night's Party than Blair which still seems quite a surprising fact.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,019
    Fck me, you'd think the last thing the Balkans needs is a Farage.


  • TresTres Posts: 1,138
    Aslan said:

    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    Ah, I see "no losing Dem candidate has accepted the Electoral college result in the last X years" is a lie being promulgated on Twitter as fact by the American right wing to act as a shield for Trump stagong a coup. Of course, of course.

    https://twitter.com/prchovanec/status/1480199672526422018?t=1-831EI1e7A3JpQbAhQ0Kw&s=19

    "I am sure that someone will post Hillary Clinton’s later remarks about the election being “illegitimate”. This was unwise and in my view unwarranted. But it doesn’t change this: her formal concession"

    Mmmmm, ok - so she claimed that the 2016 election was illegitimate but that doesn't matter, the key thing is she gave a formal concession speech

    Right.
    She accepted a peaceful transfer of power. That is what matters. That is not what the Republicans did. All the whataboutism by fascist sympathizers doesn't change that.
    I remember back in 2000 Republicans applauding Al Gore for accepting his defeat with good grace and that it showed what a great country the USA was that it could accept such a narrow election result without a hint of descent into violence. It took the MAGAers to bring us to this sad state of affairs.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 55,591
    London, Jan 9 (IANS): US drugmaker Moderna has said that it is working on a single Covid vaccine that would work against both Covid and flu. The jab could be ready as early as next year.

    According to the company's UK chief Darius Hughes, an annual "combination" vaccine would be more convenient for patients because it required fewer visits to a medical facility and cut the NHS's cost of administering vaccinations, Daily Mail reported. The vaccine against Covid and flu could be available by the winter of 2023 "at a stretch", Hughes was quoted as saying.

    Last year, the NHS sought to reassure patients that administering jabs against flu and Covid at the same time did not affect the immune response. Moderna is currently also developing a vaccine to specifically tackle the Omicron variant. Early-stage data on its effectiveness is expected within the next two weeks.


    https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=913414
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,004

    IanB2 said:

    Very excited to hear the Jezbollah is going to found Peace and Justice as a party. Off go the intellectual stars of the Labour movement like Sultana and Webbe and Tarry and Ding Dong Burgon, all the hard left vote for them and collectively they win 12,000 votes at the next election and disappear forever.

    The risk to Labour is that 12,000 is an underestimate. And a big incentive for their funding to come from shady sources opposed to their aims.
    Lefties will have a choice. A Labour government. Or trot loons like Sultana. If they vote for trot loons as a preference then they were never actually looking for a Labour government anyway.

    It's far too easy to be an opposition loon. Always right, always moral, endlessly attacking enemies inside the movement and outside. Why become an actual government and have to compromise?
    "The trot loons should simultaneously Fuck off and vote Labour"

    Great strategy from Centrists

    Anyway its a Lee Harpin story and he makes RP look like an avid Corbynite
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,729

    IanB2 said:

    Very excited to hear the Jezbollah is going to found Peace and Justice as a party. Off go the intellectual stars of the Labour movement like Sultana and Webbe and Tarry and Ding Dong Burgon, all the hard left vote for them and collectively they win 12,000 votes at the next election and disappear forever.

    The risk to Labour is that 12,000 is an underestimate. And a big incentive for their funding to come from shady sources opposed to their aims.
    Lefties will have a choice. A Labour government. Or trot loons like Sultana. If they vote for trot loons as a preference then they were never actually looking for a Labour government anyway.

    It's far too easy to be an opposition loon. Always right, always moral, endlessly attacking enemies inside the movement and outside. Why become an actual government and have to compromise?
    "The trot loons should simultaneously Fuck off and vote Labour"

    Great strategy from Centrists

    Anyway its a Lee Harpin story and he makes RP look like an avid Corbynite
    Even if he doesn't, we're going to see all the Corbynites campaigning against the Labour Party in a single seat. Because winning the Jeremy a seat is more important than things like a Labour government.

    You can't argue with that one. You don't want a Labour win either ...
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,729
    Have been doing some reading on the new interlinked smoke alarms legislation up here from next month.

    As I haven't yet clicked the button to buy new interlinked alarms to replace the existing interlinked alarms I was curious about the whole fiasco.

    Various MSPs and councillors demanding a further delay as so many people don't know about it or don't have the cash or think they are already compliant.
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 587
    What would be good odds for the Absolute Boy holding Islington North against Labour? I imagine he has a strong personal vote, but there are around 14,000 2019 VI Lib Dem and Tory voters in the constituency - some of whom might be willing to tactically vote for Labour to get him out.
  • IanB2 said:

    Very excited to hear the Jezbollah is going to found Peace and Justice as a party. Off go the intellectual stars of the Labour movement like Sultana and Webbe and Tarry and Ding Dong Burgon, all the hard left vote for them and collectively they win 12,000 votes at the next election and disappear forever.

    The risk to Labour is that 12,000 is an underestimate. And a big incentive for their funding to come from shady sources opposed to their aims.
    Lefties will have a choice. A Labour government. Or trot loons like Sultana. If they vote for trot loons as a preference then they were never actually looking for a Labour government anyway.

    It's far too easy to be an opposition loon. Always right, always moral, endlessly attacking enemies inside the movement and outside. Why become an actual government and have to compromise?
    "The trot loons should simultaneously Fuck off and vote Labour"

    Great strategy from Centrists

    Anyway its a Lee Harpin story and he makes RP look like an avid Corbynite
    Centrists telling the Trot loons to fuck off and vote Labour seems a smarter strategy for the Labour Party than the Trot loons telling centrists to fuck off and vote Tory.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885

    It is definitely @malcolmg's day for getting pestered! To add to the chorus Malcolm, I am curious as to what you make of my proposed new legislative instrument to renew the UK.

    A new 'Council of the Isles' consists of 5 members, the heads of the UK Government, the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Irish Government, and someone to represent the English.

    The COTI exists to approve UK Government finance bills, major foreign policy decisions, defence and infrastructure decisions. It cannot propose legislation, but if something is voted down, the proposal must be revised, amended, and pass the HOC before being brought back. It's a bit like the House of Lords.

    It only sits for a short discussion and a vote when there is one on.

    Say the Scottish Government was strongly against a UK Government initiative. With the support of the Welsh and Northern Irish Governments, it could vote the proposal down.

    I think this would give the home nations a renewed stake in the Union. It would also result in more considered decisions taken within the remit described above. What do you think?

    @Luckyguy1983

    Lucky that does not sound too bad , though not so sure on infrastructure as that is heavily swayed to southern England at present. However I cannot see Westminster ( aka English parliament ) giving up their powers ever, they are busy reducing the pathetic devolved powers at present. Hence why "Devomax" in any kind of form is just a dream made up by Labour to hold onto power.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    MalcolmG:
    "It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."

    I guess quite a few English people would agree with your last sentence as they have never been given a vote on whether they should carry on giving such huge quantities of cash to the Scots.
    Usual bollox from you, with 85%+ of the population you can change it any time you wish. However been too afraid to do so as you could not sponge off us. Get a backbone.
    PS: Go F*** yourself as well, go stalk someone else.
    The truth is as you probably really know that it is all a bit more complicated. Scotland gets a quite a bit more money than it should on the basis of its population and quite a bit less than it should if treated as an English region on the basis of its needs. The Barnet formula is designed to move very slowly but inextricably towards the latter and away from the former.
    Perhaps but when talking to imbeciles like Foremain you have to keep it simple. Point is we get about 40% of what we contribute and we should be responsible for 100%, the rest is squandered on vanity Westminster projects and Tories bankbooks.
    Yes, but we are all so grateful for your ability to use your vast and superior intellect to make these matters understandable in an unbiased and sober manner. I find myself overwhelmed and amazed at your patience, erudition and articulate explanation of all things Scottish. We all thank you for your highly amusing contributions.
    Tell me, is not wanting to be ruled from London inherently anti-English racism?
    Of course not and I can completely understand and respect your approach to this. However, thugs like MalcolmG do not help your cause. His approach suggests that Scottish independence is to people like him little more more than racist anti-English prejudice. For that he deserves to be mocked at the very least.
    @Nigel_Foremain @Carnyx

    You really are an obnoxious creepy little crawler. You nothing about me you piece of crap. You could never ever produce anything I have said that is anti-English. You are a pompous prick who thinks he is clever but is just a Little Englander who thinks he is superior.
    I reiterate, go F*** yourself and stop pontificating about me.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
    I agree with all of that, especially the last line that summed the problem up nicely. But if that answers a question, what question is it answering? Is the problem England control, as in to take back control. Or the problem is actually money - because power is wealth, wealth is power. Or the problem English wealth as an agent in Scotland?

    If the issue is the third one, foreign capital as agent in Scotland, what on earth is the solution?

    In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories, businesses, and all the other industries people work in?

    If there is factory in Scotland and one in England and one to close, which one is closed if owners are English? I’m from Yorkshire, my dad from Yorkshire, I live in property he owns in Chelsea whilst locals in ‘landan’ struggle now to buy property in London. Who owns the land in Scotland now, who owns freehold homes and businesses are on after independence?

    Personally I would like to see fairness in this world, and to be in a fair place, a free place, is having that financial clout to come and compete. Do you see my points?

    @moonrabbit, I certainly do and independent or not much of Scotland will be owned by people outside of it, however the key point is that a parliament should be responsible to the people and in our case we are most definitely not. Time and time again we see that what the people of Scotland want is voted against by the people of England or Westminster in particular. Given England has circa 85% minimum of the population the only cure for that is independence. That may or may not mean Scotland is richer but at least it will mean we get what we vote for and if we do not like them we can chuck them out next time. Currently we have no say in the UK whatsoever, eg we wanted to stay in Europe by a big margin but England took us out regardless.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Unexciting

    But sardonic LOL at "It was then he agreed to join the Full Stop NSPCC campaign against child abuse, which Andrew chaired, and showed up to a series of fund­raisers which the duke attended."
    Would you have been equally unexciting if it was Corbyn
    Jezza's principal objection to Epstein would not have been his paedophilia
    I think you have answered my question perfectly there thank you.

    Centrist or Royalty, shrug

    Socialist, hangings too good for them

    You are in good company not giving a stuff about the behaviour of establishment types mind.
    Is that what it sounds like when Corbyn's last remaining apologist desperately grabs at a straw?
    Sounds like your an apologist for the bloke in the Sun article to me
    If you are referring to Epstein, and in desperate absence of the ability to debate you are suggesting I am an apologist for him, then I can clearly see you have the very limited intellect of the buffoon that you so clearly idolise.
    Ha Ha Ha , get some anger management you loser
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    MalcolmG:
    "It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."

    I guess quite a few English people would agree with your last sentence as they have never been given a vote on whether they should carry on giving such huge quantities of cash to the Scots.
    Usual bollox from you, with 85%+ of the population you can change it any time you wish. However been too afraid to do so as you could not sponge off us. Get a backbone.
    PS: Go F*** yourself as well, go stalk someone else.
    The truth is as you probably really know that it is all a bit more complicated. Scotland gets a quite a bit more money than it should on the basis of its population and quite a bit less than it should if treated as an English region on the basis of its needs. The Barnet formula is designed to move very slowly but inextricably towards the latter and away from the former.
    Perhaps but when talking to imbeciles like Foremain you have to keep it simple. Point is we get about 40% of what we contribute and we should be responsible for 100%, the rest is squandered on vanity Westminster projects and Tories bankbooks.
    Yes, but we are all so grateful for your ability to use your vast and superior intellect to make these matters understandable in an unbiased and sober manner. I find myself overwhelmed and amazed at your patience, erudition and articulate explanation of all things Scottish. We all thank you for your highly amusing contributions.
    Tell me, is not wanting to be ruled from London inherently anti-English racism?
    Of course not and I can completely understand and respect your approach to this. However, thugs like MalcolmG do not help your cause. His approach suggests that Scottish independence is to people like him little more more than racist anti-English prejudice. For that he deserves to be mocked at the very least.
    You sure? His comments today certainly don't bear that out. Look at his comments earlier, for instance:

    "For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out."

    "Scottish electorate" ... "in England" ... "in England" .. "tied to England"

    Seems to me perfectly OK. He didn't say Scottish people or ENglish people. Note, particularly, the 'Scottish electorate' - i.e. voters in Scotland. Who are of course a mix of Scottish, English and so on. And England is a polity not a race. So Malky is complaining that the Scottish polity is overridden by the English one when it comes to decisions, and so on. That may be independism or regionalism but it's not racism. It also happens to be true rather a lot of the time.

    More generally - quite apart from the small matter of there being no legal definition of a Scot - note the SNP's definition of a Scot being anyone who lives in Scotland. ANd I do understand you don't like Mr Salmond, but his thinking certainly reflects the party attitude:

    https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/856

    It's very common on PB and elsewhere to use 'Scot' as shorthand for 'resident and voter in a Scottish constituency' and so on for English etc., but this invites misunderstandings, and I try to avoid it myself partly for that reason.

    Have to go and do stuff now, but have a nice weekend, or what's left of it.



    I imagine his view though is that "the Scottish electorate" is predominantly what he would regard as "Scottish". I think you also have to look at some of his other remarks, that are, shall we say, not exactly inclusive. Perhaps it his style of expressing himself, but he comes across as an unpleasant bigot and little more.
    @Nigel_Foremain @Carnyx
    Only to creepy obsessed Little Englander's with inferiority complexes. F*** off loser and keep doing it
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 6,398
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    @MoonRabbit
    FPT
    I’ll have a go with you now Malky 🙂

    The point of supporting Scottish Nationalism in political elections is to end up in a better place? To be very honest, Even as an English I am right behind any push for a better place for Scottish common origin, ethnicity, and cultural identity in this world and all that. Like anywhere. And as an English person would like fairness in this world for Scotland politically and economically.

    But say you are rich because you are free, actually having financial clout in this world would be a bonus - I’m not sure I would define as a strong place for Independent Scotland. So We can agree Scotland got to come out from divorce in a economic and political strong place in the world?

    So what’s driving Scottish Nationalism right now, particularly now? If it’s turning to localism to fight globalisation I’m not convinced to be honest. In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories and all the other industries people work in?

    This isn’t questions or debate I think for me and you, but amongst you Scots I think, so you nail down where you are going.

    To fight back against the horrors of global capital of the last 40 years needs friends, bridges bustling with commerce. Whatever the divorce settlement, that’s where you need to be. Do you see my point?

    For me the point is independence to make decisions in Scotland by Scottish electorate, may be better may be worse financially , who knows but at least it will be our decisions and we will not get the fake numbers we see now and politician's able to point at anyone else. Currently it is mainly owned by foreigners and almost all real decisions are made in England , ie Trident in middle of population, no say in bombing and killing children , little say in what our money is spent on with majority again decided in England. No matter who we elect England decide what happens, how much money we get , they also say we borrow money , etc , etc. I could go on for a fortnight.
    As we see lots of small countries make a good go of doing all right and despite being independent with less natural resources than Scotland are far richer than we are tied to England with them deciding our fate.
    It can never be right or natural for someone else to be taking all your money and deciding what is done with it when you can never vote them out.
    I agree with all of that, especially the last line that summed the problem up nicely. But if that answers a question, what question is it answering? Is the problem England control, as in to take back control. Or the problem is actually money - because power is wealth, wealth is power. Or the problem English wealth as an agent in Scotland?

    If the issue is the third one, foreign capital as agent in Scotland, what on earth is the solution?

    In an independent Scotland, who owns Scotland? Who owns the land? Who owns the properties? Who owns the factories, businesses, and all the other industries people work in?

    If there is factory in Scotland and one in England and one to close, which one is closed if owners are English? I’m from Yorkshire, my dad from Yorkshire, I live in property he owns in Chelsea whilst locals in ‘landan’ struggle now to buy property in London. Who owns the land in Scotland now, who owns freehold homes and businesses are on after independence?

    Personally I would like to see fairness in this world, and to be in a fair place, a free place, is having that financial clout to come and compete. Do you see my points?
    @moonrabbit, I certainly do and independent or not much of Scotland will be owned by people outside of it, however the key point is that a parliament should be responsible to the people and in our case we are most definitely not. Time and time again we see that what the people of Scotland want is voted against by the people of England or Westminster in particular. Given England has circa 85% minimum of the population the only cure for that is independence. That may or may not mean Scotland is richer but at least it will mean we get what we vote for and if we do not like them we can chuck them out next time. Currently we have no say in the UK whatsoever, eg we wanted to stay in Europe by a big margin but England took us out regardless.

    Understand 👍🏻

    When you have different value set but keep getting smothered and live by other values, that is democracy not working, and will make for bad history.

    So it’s divorce then, but make sure you get plenty of wealth and means to go on making it, as financial clout is Freedom in this global village, at the moment and probably as ever.
This discussion has been closed.