Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
What Scots decide is f**k all to do with you.
The UK government constitutionally and legally has the final say over the Union and it will decide if and when an indyref2 is ever allowed
You're wrong on this. Boris losing Scottish Tory MSPs en masse is really bad for him
I wonder if the PM will go sooner rather than later
A reminder that Murdo Fraser's leadership bid for the Scottish Tories was that if he became leader they would dissolve the SCons and reform as an independent Unionist Party. He lost to Ruth Davidson who promised a steady as she goes approach.
Of course, after a series of disastrous election results under Davidson that party proceeded to strip the Conservative branding off of everything possible for the 2016 Holyrood election.
Regarding @HYUFD’s allegations from this morning’s thread: For the good of the country and its people, and our international reputation, let’s hope that Cummings’ attempted coup is successful, the Tories destroy themselves in a vicious internal civil war and that they are out of office for a generation. Just to rub it in, while they are out of office, Scotland becomes independent and Ireland reunites. It would be suitable revenge for Johnson’s government’s behaviour.
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
He didn't just change his mind, he did this in a matter of days:
On February 1 2020 he wrote that he thought lab leak was likely by 70/30 to 60/40. ie Probable. Not just possible, PROBABLE. And he wrote that many important virologists agreed with him, and also thought it highly likely the virus had been engineered
Then just 18 days later the same Jeremy Farrar co-signed this letter in The Lancet:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus."
Wow. So in 18 days Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust went from thinking lab leak was the probable origin of the virus to thinking it was "overwhelmingly likely" the virus actually came from nature and that anyone who did suggest it came from the lab like, say, er, himself just two weeks before, was indulging in dangerous "conspiracy theories"
To make this total about-turn Jeremy Farrar must have seen some incredible evidence of natural origin, absolutely convincing copper-bottomed smoking-gun shit, right? And yet he has never shared it with anyone else. Which is a shame, as it would be nice to know where the virus came from. Ah well
And remember, the Lancet letter was organised by Peter Daszak, the co-head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who led the gain of function research, and yet Daszak does not reveal this link in any place in the letter, and actually declares "no conflict of interest" - a statement the Lancet had to retract, painfully, a year later
It was a massive cover-up, now completely blown open. And yes, it really matters if science is this deeply corrupted
I think it's only fair that posters on this site actually recognise the basic truth of what @Leon is saying and stop just having a Pavolvian reaction when they see his posts.
His point is a fundamentally correct one namely that, regardless of what you believe about the lab leak theory, if the Telegraph is right, you had one of the country's leading scientists go in less than 3 weeks from thinking it was probable it came from a lab to dismissing such views as conspiracy theory without any explanation - now or then - as to what prompted such a radical change of view. Nor the role of Daszak and his behaviour, which can only be described, generously, as "interesting."
These are the people that we are told to trust. I think any of us, if they were faced with someone at work (or even a Prime Minister) who repeated this pattern of behaviour, would be asking questions about their veracity and what went on.
Post-this crisis, there has to be an inquiry but not one conducted by the scientific community as there is a fair chance it will be a whitewash. And quite frankly, it will be the best for science.
Well said
You can see the crucial importance of this, in what is happening right now, today, on Twitter. Whether it came from the lab or not (it did, surely, but whatever) there is now incontrovertible evidence that scientists conspired with bureaucrats to crush the very idea that it came from the lab, even if they personally thought that explanation was likely. For a year the concept of "lab leak" was literally banned by Facebook, Youtube etc
So now every nutter on social media is saying Look, they lied about lab leak - which they did - how can we trust them on vaccines, or therapies, or anything else? The awful, stupid conspiracy has undermined science at the worst possible time.
And it is a fair question, hard to answer. How CAN we trust them on vaccines if they lied about Covid origins so profusely and shamelessly?
I do trust them, because vaccines seem to work. But anyone with doubts now has many more doubts
The thing which most disturbed me was the Great Barrington Declaration. Not the thing itself, but Google and Facebook's response to it. If you Googled Great Barrington Declaration, you just got a site saying why it was wrong. What used to be considered neutral players in information were doing their best to suppress things they found inconvenient. It's understandable when the CCP are doing it. We know they're an autocracy. But when Google and Facebook are doing it it's almost more sinister. It's considerably more puzzling.
Adam Payne @adampayne26 · 2m I’m told the post-PMQs mood among Tory MPs elected in 2019 is “dark and subdued” with many feeling that they will lose their seats at the next election as things stand
I suspect many of them are looking at the leadership options and finally grasping how screwed they actually are come the next election..
The Red Wall seats may not be returning 100% red but they won't be very much blue left.
So they have been perusing the redwall subsamples. Naughty boys.
No PBing for those guys, for several years at least.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
What Scots decide is f**k all to do with you.
The UK government constitutionally and legally has the final say over the Union and it will decide if and when an indyref2 is ever allowed
You're wrong on this. Boris losing Scottish Tory MSPs en masse is really bad for him
I wonder if the PM will go sooner rather than later
Scottish MSPs are in Holyrood, not even Westminster.
Though yes I think a VONC may now occur, albeit I still think Boris could win it about 55% to 45%
My decision to rejoin the Tory party and take part in a 2022 leadership election is proving very wise.
I might do the same but how does it work regarding the three months for rejoining? Is that three months before the vacancy is announced, or three months before the ballot?
Unless he gets replaced after the May elections, it seems unlikely I'd be able to rejoin and still get a vote for a 2022 election since its looking like a 2022 election will be before May.
Why didn't you rejoin when "Boris" took over? You liked him an awful lot, both the man and his vision.
I did. I quit when he lifted National Insurance. I wrote a thread header here saying so at the time.
I joined originally when Howard was leader even though I really disliked Howard but because I was disgusted at the party choosing IDS over Ken Clarke and I wanted a say in the next election which I got and voted for Cameron. I've since quit twice, when May was elected in 2016 (before her deal or any of those divisions) and when the Tories increased National Insurance.
Gosh, you're in and out like a tomcat. I picture you tearing up the card with gusto rather than just prosaically stopping the direct debit. Please don't disabuse me of that if I'm wrong.
Regarding @HYUFD’s allegations from this morning’s thread: For the good of the country and its people, and our international reputation, let’s hope that Cummings’ attempted coup is successful, the Tories destroy themselves in a vicious internal civil war and that they are out of office for a generation. Just to rub it in, while they are out of office, Scotland becomes independent and Ireland reunites. It would be suitable revenge for Johnson’s government’s behaviour.
You missed "and England+Wales rejoin the EU".
They won't, even Starmer is not proposing that as bang goes the redwall
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
He didn't just change his mind, he did this in a matter of days:
On February 1 2020 he wrote that he thought lab leak was likely by 70/30 to 60/40. ie Probable. Not just possible, PROBABLE. And he wrote that many important virologists agreed with him, and also thought it highly likely the virus had been engineered
Then just 18 days later the same Jeremy Farrar co-signed this letter in The Lancet:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus."
Wow. So in 18 days Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust went from thinking lab leak was the probable origin of the virus to thinking it was "overwhelmingly likely" the virus actually came from nature and that anyone who did suggest it came from the lab like, say, er, himself just two weeks before, was indulging in dangerous "conspiracy theories"
To make this total about-turn Jeremy Farrar must have seen some incredible evidence of natural origin, absolutely convincing copper-bottomed smoking-gun shit, right? And yet he has never shared it with anyone else. Which is a shame, as it would be nice to know where the virus came from. Ah well
And remember, the Lancet letter was organised by Peter Daszak, the co-head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who led the gain of function research, and yet Daszak does not reveal this link in any place in the letter, and actually declares "no conflict of interest" - a statement the Lancet had to retract, painfully, a year later
It was a massive cover-up, now completely blown open. And yes, it really matters if science is this deeply corrupted
As I say a big part of the reason it is unknowable is that we can't trust analysis of it. Saying that scientists were not honest about it is hardly going to make me change my mind that we will never know.
It is also misses the point that from now on, biological warfare will be open to any state, terrorist group or cult with a couple of test tubes and a PhD in crispr. Which means every country will need to work on defences, which in turn means there will be hundreds more labs from which viruses can escape.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Trust you, you prat.
But seriously - seriously - more strength to your elbow.
I'm really willing you to prevail. I really hope you and your kind manage to keep Boris Johnson in place as the standard-bearer of the Tories for every bloody minute that's humanly feasible.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
What Scots decide is f**k all to do with you.
The UK government constitutionally and legally has the final say over the Union and it will decide if and when an indyref2 is ever allowed
You're wrong on this. Boris losing Scottish Tory MSPs en masse is really bad for him
I wonder if the PM will go sooner rather than later
Scottish MSPs are in Holyrood, not even Westminster.
Though yes I think a VONC may now occur, albeit I still think Boris could win it about 55% to 45%
That would be closer than Thatcher's victory in the first round in 1990, which was enough to see her off - and she was a massively more formidable politician and presence than Johnson is.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your friends on here have been suggesting for months HY, don’t get sucked into the ridiculous and fake Personality games of politics - read up on the world of political ideas to firm up what your own politics is, the ideas and policies you are at home to caucus with because they further your set of values. That’s what is worth defending in this world, not defend ridiculous cad’s dying in a ditch of their own lies.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
Did Dougie and Ruthie miss you off their Christmas card list? I think I can understand why.
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
He didn't just change his mind, he did this in a matter of days:
On February 1 2020 he wrote that he thought lab leak was likely by 70/30 to 60/40. ie Probable. Not just possible, PROBABLE. And he wrote that many important virologists agreed with him, and also thought it highly likely the virus had been engineered
Then just 18 days later the same Jeremy Farrar co-signed this letter in The Lancet:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus."
Wow. So in 18 days Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust went from thinking lab leak was the probable origin of the virus to thinking it was "overwhelmingly likely" the virus actually came from nature and that anyone who did suggest it came from the lab like, say, er, himself just two weeks before, was indulging in dangerous "conspiracy theories"
To make this total about-turn Jeremy Farrar must have seen some incredible evidence of natural origin, absolutely convincing copper-bottomed smoking-gun shit, right? And yet he has never shared it with anyone else. Which is a shame, as it would be nice to know where the virus came from. Ah well
And remember, the Lancet letter was organised by Peter Daszak, the co-head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who led the gain of function research, and yet Daszak does not reveal this link in any place in the letter, and actually declares "no conflict of interest" - a statement the Lancet had to retract, painfully, a year later
It was a massive cover-up, now completely blown open. And yes, it really matters if science is this deeply corrupted
I think it's only fair that posters on this site actually recognise the basic truth of what @Leon is saying and stop just having a Pavolvian reaction when they see his posts.
His point is a fundamentally correct one namely that, regardless of what you believe about the lab leak theory, if the Telegraph is right, you had one of the country's leading scientists go in less than 3 weeks from thinking it was probable it came from a lab to dismissing such views as conspiracy theory without any explanation - now or then - as to what prompted such a radical change of view. Nor the role of Daszak and his behaviour, which can only be described, generously, as "interesting."
These are the people that we are told to trust. I think any of us, if they were faced with someone at work (or even a Prime Minister) who repeated this pattern of behaviour, would be asking questions about their veracity and what went on.
Post-this crisis, there has to be an inquiry but not one conducted by the scientific community as there is a fair chance it will be a whitewash. And quite frankly, it will be the best for science.
Well said
You can see the crucial importance of this, in what is happening right now, today, on Twitter. Whether it came from the lab or not (it did, surely, but whatever) there is now incontrovertible evidence that scientists conspired with bureaucrats to crush the very idea that it came from the lab, even if they personally thought that explanation was likely. For a year the concept of "lab leak" was literally banned by Facebook, Youtube etc
So now every nutter on social media is saying Look, they lied about lab leak - which they did - how can we trust them on vaccines, or therapies, or anything else? The awful, stupid conspiracy has undermined science at the worst possible time.
And it is a fair question, hard to answer. How CAN we trust them on vaccines if they lied about Covid origins so profusely and shamelessly?
I do trust them, because vaccines seem to work. But anyone with doubts now has many more doubts
The thing which most disturbed me was the Great Barrington Declaration. Not the thing itself, but Google and Facebook's response to it. If you Googled Great Barrington Declaration, you just got a site saying why it was wrong. What used to be considered neutral players in information were doing their best to suppress things they found inconvenient. It's understandable when the CCP are doing it. We know they're an autocracy. But when Google and Facebook are doing it it's almost more sinister. It's considerably more puzzling.
It IS more sinister. Because we like to believe we are superior to the Chinese Communist System because we have Free Speech.
Increasingly, and in multiple depressing ways, I wonder if that is true. It is especially depressing when we are talking about Science, where truth telling is the bedrock of everything
Just think, in a couple of years time Boris and Prince Andrew can rehabilitate themselves as some sort of Waldorf and Stadler tribute act or a Posh older version of Ant and Dec, And & DePfef maybe.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
What Scots decide is f**k all to do with you.
The UK government constitutionally and legally has the final say over the Union and it will decide if and when an indyref2 is ever allowed
You're wrong on this. Boris losing Scottish Tory MSPs en masse is really bad for him
I wonder if the PM will go sooner rather than later
Scottish MSPs are in Holyrood, not even Westminster.
Though yes I think a VONC may now occur, albeit I still think Boris could win it about 55% to 45%
That would be closer than Thatcher's victory in the first round in 1990, which was enough to see her off - and she was a massively more formidable politician and presence than Johnson is.
Yes, but considerably less shameless, which is the key attribute required to stagger on in the face of a narrow win in a VoNC.
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
Imagine having achieved that stunning historic majority with the entire right wing establishment on your side only to spaff it all up the wall so quickly over really lame lying & partying with your new young wife at work. It’s genuinely mind boggling. https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1481312444811255813
Regarding @HYUFD’s allegations from this morning’s thread: For the good of the country and its people, and our international reputation, let’s hope that Cummings’ attempted coup is successful, the Tories destroy themselves in a vicious internal civil war and that they are out of office for a generation. Just to rub it in, while they are out of office, Scotland becomes independent and Ireland reunites. It would be suitable revenge for Johnson’s government’s behaviour.
You missed "and England+Wales rejoin the EU".
The desperate desire to Rejoin the EU from the left will be what costs them general elections.
If Labour are over 10% ahead in the next round of polls then yes there will almost certainly be a VONC sooner than later.
If however Boris has kept the Labour lead under 10% despite the media and opposition onslaught after the attempted Cummings coup I think he will survive. He should then be safe until the next general election, in May he can probably point to a few key Tory holds in the likes of Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea in the locals and in the 2023 locals the Tories did so awfully in 2019 anyway there is little further for them to fall.
This is not a Cummings coup
Boris is responsible for wallpapergate, partygate, Paterson debacle, and sleeze and as my son ( who is a conservative) said Carrie has been at the heart of this with her extravagant entitled attitude and love of parties
You need to accept Boris is totally self inflicted toast
No, this is a Cummings coup with leaks done to advance his agenda
I'm sure Cummings is leaking in order to get Boris and Carrie out but ask yourself this... who gave him the ammunition to leak in the first place?
Cummings has it all himself. People may not like him but he is a million times brighter than Johnson and will have made sure that nothing happened in Downing Street during his tenure without him having a record of it filed away for later use.
"Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’
"Emails to Dr Anthony Fauci show ‘likely’ explanation identified at start of coronavirus pandemic, but there were worries about saying so"
"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.
"An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.
"The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.
It probably came from the lab, as I have been telling you for 18 months. This was also the opinion of many leading scientists right from the start, as I have been telling you for 18 months. it was probably engineered in the lab to be more transmissible, as I have been telling you for 18 months. But for various reasons there was a high level conspiracy to cover this up and crush an extremely plausible hypothesis: lab leak. As I have been telling you for 18 months.
So they found one senior scientist who thought it was 50/50 and another 60/40. Not exactly conclusive? Unknowable this one.
That's Jeremy Farrar, the leader of the Wellcome Trust, who thought it was 70/30 lab leak, and said so
Also this, from the earliest emails:
"In the emails, Sir Jeremy said that other scientists also believed the virus could not have evolved naturally. One such scientist was Professor Mike Farzan, of Scripps Research, the expert who discovered how the original Sars virus binds to human cells.
Scientists were particularly concerned by a part of Covid-19 called the furin cleavage site, a section of the spike protein which helps it enter cells and makes it so infectious to humans.
Summarising Professor Farzan’s concerns in an email, Sir Jeremy said: “He is bothered by the furin site and has a hard time (to) explain that as an event outside the lab, though there are possible ways in nature but highly unlikely."
And these guys
"The emails also show that Bob Garry, of the University of Texas, was unconvinced that Covid-19 emerged naturally.
“I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature,” he said.
"Professor Andrew Rambaut, from the University of Edinburgh, also said that furin cleavage site “strikes me as unusual”. "
And there are dozens more if you look at what is being revealed, right now, in the USA, it is all spilling out
But of course you know better, but also you know that all this is "unknowable" so let's not bother trying to know. But you still somehow know. Is that right?
Farrar changed his mind from 70/30 to 50/50 so over time thought it less likely. If you ask him today he might give a different percentage again. In five years time yet another percentage. I doubt even he will get to 100/0 so yes for the likes of you and I it is unknowable. Perhaps a few people in the CCP or the Wuhan lab do really know.
He didn't just change his mind, he did this in a matter of days:
On February 1 2020 he wrote that he thought lab leak was likely by 70/30 to 60/40. ie Probable. Not just possible, PROBABLE. And he wrote that many important virologists agreed with him, and also thought it highly likely the virus had been engineered
Then just 18 days later the same Jeremy Farrar co-signed this letter in The Lancet:
"We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife as have so many other emerging pathogens This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus."
Wow. So in 18 days Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust went from thinking lab leak was the probable origin of the virus to thinking it was "overwhelmingly likely" the virus actually came from nature and that anyone who did suggest it came from the lab like, say, er, himself just two weeks before, was indulging in dangerous "conspiracy theories"
To make this total about-turn Jeremy Farrar must have seen some incredible evidence of natural origin, absolutely convincing copper-bottomed smoking-gun shit, right? And yet he has never shared it with anyone else. Which is a shame, as it would be nice to know where the virus came from. Ah well
And remember, the Lancet letter was organised by Peter Daszak, the co-head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who led the gain of function research, and yet Daszak does not reveal this link in any place in the letter, and actually declares "no conflict of interest" - a statement the Lancet had to retract, painfully, a year later
It was a massive cover-up, now completely blown open. And yes, it really matters if science is this deeply corrupted
I think it's only fair that posters on this site actually recognise the basic truth of what @Leon is saying and stop just having a Pavolvian reaction when they see his posts.
His point is a fundamentally correct one namely that, regardless of what you believe about the lab leak theory, if the Telegraph is right, you had one of the country's leading scientists go in less than 3 weeks from thinking it was probable it came from a lab to dismissing such views as conspiracy theory without any explanation - now or then - as to what prompted such a radical change of view. Nor the role of Daszak and his behaviour, which can only be described, generously, as "interesting."
These are the people that we are told to trust. I think any of us, if they were faced with someone at work (or even a Prime Minister) who repeated this pattern of behaviour, would be asking questions about their veracity and what went on.
Post-this crisis, there has to be an inquiry but not one conducted by the scientific community as there is a fair chance it will be a whitewash. And quite frankly, it will be the best for science.
Well said
You can see the crucial importance of this, in what is happening right now, today, on Twitter. Whether it came from the lab or not (it did, surely, but whatever) there is now incontrovertible evidence that scientists conspired with bureaucrats to crush the very idea that it came from the lab, even if they personally thought that explanation was likely. For a year the concept of "lab leak" was literally banned by Facebook, Youtube etc
So now every nutter on social media is saying Look, they lied about lab leak - which they did - how can we trust them on vaccines, or therapies, or anything else? The awful, stupid conspiracy has undermined science at the worst possible time.
And it is a fair question, hard to answer. How CAN we trust them on vaccines if they lied about Covid origins so profusely and shamelessly?
I do trust them, because vaccines seem to work. But anyone with doubts now has many more doubts
The thing which most disturbed me was the Great Barrington Declaration. Not the thing itself, but Google and Facebook's response to it. If you Googled Great Barrington Declaration, you just got a site saying why it was wrong. What used to be considered neutral players in information were doing their best to suppress things they found inconvenient. It's understandable when the CCP are doing it. We know they're an autocracy. But when Google and Facebook are doing it it's almost more sinister. It's considerably more puzzling.
I didn't know that. I'm pretty shocked if that's the case (and I have no reason to disbelieve you). Are you saying that a Google search for example didn't bring a link to the statement, rather than just having some kind of text warning that the statement was disputed etc?
Definitely not the case now. I do seem to recall finding it rather easily at the time, too.
“ Liz Truss, also in the running for PM, has also not tweeted or voiced her support but was spotted giving him a knee touch in the Commons.”
What is wrong with her? 🤷♀️
If she ain’t careful PBs “Jizz with Liz” meme is going to go Global Britain.
Jizz with Liz? Knee touching?
Careful. Porn, drugs, prostitution etc is Sean’s specialist area.
We had that earlier alongside a reference to Mummy porn and something called a Sybian which seems to be connected to this photo
I have to admit the post internet bachelor days of TSE seem far more "enlightening" than my pre internet bachelor days.
New day, same old misogyny on PB.
I don't see any particular misogyny in it. As I recall the latest discussion of it was from MoonRabbit, who unless I'm much very mistaken, is a lady ;.)
Absolute lols at the Scottish case figures. Down almost 50% week on week.
Everyone is going to shit their pants tomorrow.
Why?
Scotland currently doesn't report lfd results. On the 5th they told people to stop getting a pcr if they get a positive lfd. Been a massive "drop" in cases since the 6th. Tomorrow Scotland starts reporting lfd results.
So what? If there's a rise in the figures it's only notional based on a change in the testing regimen. We need to move away from these hair-trigger responses to changes in the number of positive tests. It doesn't change the reality.
The MV figures UK wide are lower than they were in the autumn – that's pretty much the long and short of it.
My decision to rejoin the Tory party and take part in a 2022 leadership election is proving very wise.
I might do the same but how does it work regarding the three months for rejoining? Is that three months before the vacancy is announced, or three months before the ballot?
Unless he gets replaced after the May elections, it seems unlikely I'd be able to rejoin and still get a vote for a 2022 election since its looking like a 2022 election will be before May.
Why didn't you rejoin when "Boris" took over? You liked him an awful lot, both the man and his vision.
I did. I quit when he lifted National Insurance. I wrote a thread header here saying so at the time.
I joined originally when Howard was leader even though I really disliked Howard but because I was disgusted at the party choosing IDS over Ken Clarke and I wanted a say in the next election which I got and voted for Cameron. I've since quit twice, when May was elected in 2016 (before her deal or any of those divisions) and when the Tories increased National Insurance.
Gosh, you're in and out like a tomcat. I picture you tearing up the card with gusto rather than just prosaically stopping the direct debit. Please don't disabuse me of that if I'm wrong.
Is this what tomcats do? Repeatedly rejoin and resign from the Conservative Party?
I used to have a tomcat (well, he'd been done, but only at the age of about 5 or more and by then they're so full of testosterone that the instincts never really die). Big old bruiser, he was, though mellowed with age (unless you were a dog). Took on a speeding car and came away with nothing more than a broken tooth and a bit of a headache. Once broke down a lockable catflap simply by charging at it with his head. God, he was ace. I rather suspect he was a Conservative, though I'm not aware he was ever a member of the party.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your friends on here have been suggesting for months HY, don’t get sucked into the ridiculous and fake Personality games of politics - read up on the world of political ideas to firm up what your own politics is, the ideas and policies you are at home to caucus with because they further your set of values. That’s what is worth defending in this world, not defend ridiculous cad’s dying in a ditch of their own lies.
The point is I do agree with the direction Boris is taking the country and there is very little policy difference from any alternative leader seeking to benefit from the attempted Cummings coup
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
What Scots decide is f**k all to do with you.
The UK government constitutionally and legally has the final say over the Union and it will decide if and when an indyref2 is ever allowed
You're wrong on this. Boris losing Scottish Tory MSPs en masse is really bad for him
I wonder if the PM will go sooner rather than later
Scottish MSPs are in Holyrood, not even Westminster.
Though yes I think a VONC may now occur, albeit I still think Boris could win it about 55% to 45%
That would be closer than Thatcher's victory in the first round in 1990, which was enough to see her off - and she was a massively more formidable politician and presence than Johnson is.
Thatcher would have survived with the current rules, probably until 1992, as there is no second round and any leader who wins a VONC, even with just 51%, is safe for a year.
Corbyn of course survived for years as Labour leader even after most Labour MPs voted against him in 2016
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
🚨 New: Michael Gove has begun his speech to the 1922 committee of backbench Tory MPs with a hefty defence of the PM - telling MPs what the party used to be like and when it was on a “knife edge”, reminding them of the gains at the 2019 election. https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1481313398721851395
Bangs for Michael Gove as he enters the 1922 committee. Asked if he can understand public anger about the alleged 20 May party, he says "we should wait until all the facts are in the public domain" until a full judgement can be made.
Asked if the PM should resign if he broke the law he says there's an 'ongoing inquiry'.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your friends on here have been suggesting for months HY, don’t get sucked into the ridiculous and fake Personality games of politics - read up on the world of political ideas to firm up what your own politics is, the ideas and policies you are at home to caucus with because they further your set of values. That’s what is worth defending in this world, not defend ridiculous cad’s dying in a ditch of their own lies.
The point is I do agree with the direction Boris is taking the country and there is very little policy difference from any alternative leader seeking to benefit from the attempted Cummings coup
As an outsider I'd be grateful if you would outline this direction. Cos I can't discern one. All tactics and no strategy since day one.
And that's a figure which we all know is manipulated down, and depends very much on what you want to buy. Flatscreen tellies get cheaper, but food and a roof over your head does not.
US house inflation is 23% in last year !!!!!!!!!
Brace.
Is that not partly recovery from the covid trough, however?
I am told that in the garden drinking at the 20 May party with Carrie Johnson were two special advisers who were then working in the Cabinet Office for @michaelgove, and did not work in Downing Street. They were Henry Newman and Josh Grimstone. I have put this to Downing St... but they are not commenting. The point is that the argument this was a purely No 10 work event is much harder to sustain when outsiders there, with the PM's spouse. I assume Sue Gray will pursue this
Bangs for Michael Gove as he enters the 1922 committee. Asked if he can understand public anger about the alleged 20 May party, he says "we should wait until all the facts are in the public domain" until a full judgement can be made.
Asked if the PM should resign if he broke the law he says there's an 'ongoing inquiry'.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
What Scots decide is f**k all to do with you.
The UK government constitutionally and legally has the final say over the Union and it will decide if and when an indyref2 is ever allowed
You're wrong on this. Boris losing Scottish Tory MSPs en masse is really bad for him
I wonder if the PM will go sooner rather than later
Scottish MSPs are in Holyrood, not even Westminster
The FUD strikes again. Trouble is he really is the last Tory standing and has "forgotton nothing and learned nothing". The Tories are, for about the sixth time in 25 years, trying to pretend that changing their leader changes everything about them. It doesn´t and it is over. Maybe not straightaway, but soon, and terminally for the Tory Prime Minister, the Tory government and finally the Tory party itself.
How dare you inflict this abject piece of crap on us. How dare you ride rough shode across any sense of decency, truth or justice. How dare you look down on Scotland. How dare you continue to defend the utterly indefensible. At first your complacent drivel was (kinda) funny, now you just remind the vast majority why your and your party are totally unfit for office at any level. Be off with you and your festering, lying, incompetent, poisonous rabble.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
Did Dougie and Ruthie miss you off their Christmas card list? I think I can understand why.
I think HYUFD cares more about independence not happening under the Tories watch, rather than actually trying to keep the union together.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
"Tired and worn out." Is how Wragg describes MP's. For once they have captured the mood of the nation perfectly. Being gaslighted by the PM is the last thing anyone needs right now.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
Did Dougie and Ruthie miss you off their Christmas card list? I think I can understand why.
I think HYUFD cares more about independence not happening under the Tories watch, rather than actually trying to keep the union together.
I have long supported devomax and back an English Parliament too, we need an even looser union in my view to keep it together.
Much of what Westminster now does no longer affects Scots anyway, see Covid rules now set in Holyrood not London
My decision to rejoin the Tory party and take part in a 2022 leadership election is proving very wise.
I might do the same but how does it work regarding the three months for rejoining? Is that three months before the vacancy is announced, or three months before the ballot?
Unless he gets replaced after the May elections, it seems unlikely I'd be able to rejoin and still get a vote for a 2022 election since its looking like a 2022 election will be before May.
Why didn't you rejoin when "Boris" took over? You liked him an awful lot, both the man and his vision.
I did. I quit when he lifted National Insurance. I wrote a thread header here saying so at the time.
I joined originally when Howard was leader even though I really disliked Howard but because I was disgusted at the party choosing IDS over Ken Clarke and I wanted a say in the next election which I got and voted for Cameron. I've since quit twice, when May was elected in 2016 (before her deal or any of those divisions) and when the Tories increased National Insurance.
Gosh, you're in and out like a tomcat. I picture you tearing up the card with gusto rather than just prosaically stopping the direct debit. Please don't disabuse me of that if I'm wrong.
Is this what tomcats do? Repeatedly rejoin and resign from the Conservative Party?
I used to have a tomcat (well, he'd been done, but only at the age of about 5 or more and by then they're so full of testosterone that the instincts never really die). Big old bruiser, he was, though mellowed with age (unless you were a dog). Took on a speeding car and came away with nothing more than a broken tooth and a bit of a headache. Once broke down a lockable catflap simply by charging at it with his head. God, he was ace. I rather suspect he was a Conservative, though I'm not aware he was ever a member of the party.
They come in and out of the flap all the time, don't they? I was picturing Bartholomew like that. Nice name for a cat, in fact, come to think of it. And indeed for a PB blogger.
That sounds quite a 'one' you had. More ERG than One Nation by the sounds of it.
My decision to rejoin the Tory party and take part in a 2022 leadership election is proving very wise.
I might do the same but how does it work regarding the three months for rejoining? Is that three months before the vacancy is announced, or three months before the ballot?
Unless he gets replaced after the May elections, it seems unlikely I'd be able to rejoin and still get a vote for a 2022 election since its looking like a 2022 election will be before May.
Why didn't you rejoin when "Boris" took over? You liked him an awful lot, both the man and his vision.
I did. I quit when he lifted National Insurance. I wrote a thread header here saying so at the time.
I joined originally when Howard was leader even though I really disliked Howard but because I was disgusted at the party choosing IDS over Ken Clarke and I wanted a say in the next election which I got and voted for Cameron. I've since quit twice, when May was elected in 2016 (before her deal or any of those divisions) and when the Tories increased National Insurance.
Gosh, you're in and out like a tomcat. I picture you tearing up the card with gusto rather than just prosaically stopping the direct debit. Please don't disabuse me of that if I'm wrong.
Is this what tomcats do? Repeatedly rejoin and resign from the Conservative Party?
I used to have a tomcat (well, he'd been done, but only at the age of about 5 or more and by then they're so full of testosterone that the instincts never really die). Big old bruiser, he was, though mellowed with age (unless you were a dog). Took on a speeding car and came away with nothing more than a broken tooth and a bit of a headache. Once broke down a lockable catflap simply by charging at it with his head. God, he was ace. I rather suspect he was a Conservative, though I'm not aware he was ever a member of the party.
Certainly sounds Johnsonite.
- Desire to mate with everything - Habit of making bad decisions with little consequence (car) - Rule beaker (cat flap)
Edit: Probably not a massive hypocrite though? And I think remembered rather more fondly?
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
The Prince Andrew ruling is a victory for women
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Remember that pretty much those arguments were put to them in 2011 and were smashed down and Murdo Fraser's career never recovered. It's not what is good for Scotland or the UK that counts here but what is good for the Scottish Unionists, and that is a huge psychological barrier. It would be a hell of a psychological shift from being a MP in the monolithic Labour-destroying Tory Party to the equivalent of the DUP.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Asymmetric devolution didn't stop SLAB MPs becoming PM or getting positions in the Cabinet - even ones whose responsibilities had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (i.e. John Reid as Health Secretary).
Encouraged by the judgement the other week, I presume this guy will now argue that because Eric Gill did some really sick shit it must be removed and the corporation won't do so, so he is going to.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
As I've mentioned above, you're artificially conflating two separate issues. There's a long tradition of country-specific Unionist parties like the Ulster Unionists in the UK. It would do the cause of the Scottish Tories, and Unionism in general a lot of good if they form a new one.
No, it's a huge propaganda victory for the SNP - and a huge personal defeat for the MPs. They will instantly be disqualified de jure or in practice from being PM of the UK. The party's focus will move to Holyrood - and deviate more and more from the London-based party. As we are seeing happen.
Except, do we see any significant likelihood of a Scottish Prime Minister again as things currently stand? The wonky structure of devolution already mitigates against it, and nobody is interested in fixing it with full federalism because (a) of the problem of the size of England and (b) the English electorate isn't interested in making the change.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
Asymmetric devolution didn't stop SLAB MPs becoming PM or getting positions in the Cabinet - even ones whose responsibilities had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament (i.e. John Reid as Health Secretary).
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
No. I'm asking YOU personally. Were they right or wrong?
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
Yeah, it's a bit different as it's not like it's a statue of Gill. But if it's winding up the BBC, good.
Sam Coates saying he is finding more and more conservative mps upset by Boris apology and are waiting for Sue Grey report
Quite what she's going to tell them that they don't already know, I've no idea. Perhaps they're hoping for yet more damaging leaks in the meantime, to give them cover to act? It's all a bit weak.
Brief after work drinks in the workplace is not a party
Your integrity is becoming yet one more of Johnson's casualties, H, and it's painful to see.
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
No, it would be as damaging longer term to the party as removing Thatcher was in 1990 and set in motion a civil war which would in effect last for almost 2 decades. Most of which we would again spend in opposition
What's damaged the Tory party is the absence of anyone in Number Ten with the sense and influence over Johnson to have prevented him from trashing his Premiership with the Paterson fiasco.
There are no Johnson loyalists who will fight a civil war in the party on his behalf if he is pushed out, and I don't see what significant change of policy would follow from a change of PM at this stage. No new PM is going to make a drastic change of policy on Brexit - this is very different from 1990 when it was felt that Thatcher was brought down by the pro-Europeans.
"Outside BBC right now a man is trying to smash up Eric Gill statue while another man live streams talking about paedophiles. Gill’s horrific crimes are well known. But is this the way?" https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
Gill was a grotesque pervert, yet his artworks are often beautiful
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
I am certainly not arguing this, but I did say the other week, slippery slope of such decisions, where people will argue about the individuals and the politics, not the criminal act of vandalising a statue.
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
Really? I'd have thought the Guardian would be cheering him on.
Difficult situation, because if he stays, it will make the Scottish Tories look weak, or have to take further action, such as leave the Tory Party unilaterally. That course of action wouldn't be a bad idea for them electorally.
But it's pointless. Being a Scottish Tory is now all about Union with London.
Actually, this reminds me of something that surprised me yesterday and might be a straw in the wind. There came in the letterbox a leaflet from one of the Regional MSPs, a Tory. I was astounded by it. It did not mention independence or referenda once. Not once. It could have been a LD leaflet but for the colour.
This is an amazing change for the ScoTories, who have for over a decade been the Ruth Davidson No Surrender to Indy No Referendum Party with that plastered all over their bumf, right down to the lowest local authority election (with Mr Ross only being a minor typological edit, so to speak).
There is obviously some very urgent underwear-changing, reverse-ferreting and policy-wonking going on amongst the ScoTories.
If the Union is to be preserved it will be by the UK Tories refusing indyref2 when in power, or by UK Labour offering Scots devomax and scraping a No vote in an indyref2 when they are in power.
The SCons are now largely completely irrelevant to preserving the Union and will be unless they somehow managed to deprive the SNP and Greens of a Holyrood majority, which they failed to do last year while Boris won a landslide for the UK Tories 2 years before
That reminds me. You still have not answered my question: should the UK have given India independence? The Indians wanted it, but the UK by its laws had no need to grant it.
Churchill's Tory government never did, only Attlee's Labour government did
Churchill did not lead a Conservative government till after Indian independence.
Comments
I have to admit the post internet bachelor days of TSE seem far more "enlightening" than my pre internet bachelor days.
He tells Radio 4's PM programme his "position is untenable"
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1481310489556795395
I wonder if the PM will go sooner rather than later
Of course, after a series of disastrous election results under Davidson that party proceeded to strip the Conservative branding off of everything possible for the 2016 Holyrood election.
EDIT: Absolutely incredible Guardian correction to this story: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/04/scottish-tories-new-party-fraser
It's understandable when the CCP are doing it. We know they're an autocracy. But when Google and Facebook are doing it it's almost more sinister. It's considerably more puzzling.
Though yes I think a VONC may now occur, albeit I still think Boris could win it about 55% to 45%
Is this in any way related to Jizz with Liz?
The big moment for Rishi, what to announce when the energy cap changes. He can’t really slash Green Taxes can he?
When was this one? The one we are all talking about involved trestle tables groaning with food and nibbles and everyone bringing a bottle.
The discussion about Patel also raises the question of what Downing Street police were doing on the evening in question.
I'm really willing you to prevail. I really hope you and your kind manage to keep Boris Johnson in place as the standard-bearer of the Tories for every bloody minute that's humanly feasible.
Increasingly, and in multiple depressing ways, I wonder if that is true. It is especially depressing when we are talking about Science, where truth telling is the bedrock of everything
Understand he thought it would be pointless otherwise. Cue empty chairs in TV & radio studios across the land.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1481312104619683841
https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1481312444811255813
Definitely not the case now. I do seem to recall finding it rather easily at the time, too.
https://twitter.com/carryonkeith/status/1481292994657636355
The MV figures UK wide are lower than they were in the autumn – that's pretty much the long and short of it.
I used to have a tomcat (well, he'd been done, but only at the age of about 5 or more and by then they're so full of testosterone that the instincts never really die). Big old bruiser, he was, though mellowed with age (unless you were a dog). Took on a speeding car and came away with nothing more than a broken tooth and a bit of a headache. Once broke down a lockable catflap simply by charging at it with his head. God, he was ace. I rather suspect he was a Conservative, though I'm not aware he was ever a member of the party.
https://twitter.com/hayleymortimer/status/1481301781586096133
Brace.
Corbyn of course survived for years as Labour leader even after most Labour MPs voted against him in 2016
Could have done with one in Number 11.
Their reply: https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1481313359756734467/photo/1
Would it not be better to replace him so you can get behind the party again with a clean conscience?
🚨 New: Michael Gove has begun his speech to the 1922 committee of backbench Tory MPs with a hefty defence of the PM - telling MPs what the party used to be like and when it was on a “knife edge”, reminding them of the gains at the 2019 election.
https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1481313398721851395
Asked if the PM should resign if he broke the law he says there's an 'ongoing inquiry'.
On Douglas Ross... "my instant response is he's in Elgin and the national Tory leader is in London".
https://twitter.com/Kate_M_Proctor/status/1481313097017180161
I am told that in the garden drinking at the 20 May party with Carrie Johnson were two special advisers who were then working in the Cabinet Office for @michaelgove, and did not work in Downing Street. They were Henry Newman and Josh Grimstone. I have put this to Downing St...
but they are not commenting. The point is that the argument this was a purely No 10 work event is much harder to sustain when outsiders there, with the PM's spouse. I assume Sue Gray will pursue this
How dare you inflict this abject piece of crap on us. How dare you ride rough shode across any sense of decency, truth or justice. How dare you look down on Scotland. How dare you continue to defend the utterly indefensible. At first your complacent drivel was (kinda) funny, now you just remind the vast majority why your and your party are totally unfit for office at any level. Be off with you and your festering, lying, incompetent, poisonous rabble.
https://order-order.com/2022/01/12/man-smashing-up-bbcs-eric-gill-statue/
https://twitter.com/katierazz/status/1481307310534402049?s=20
He must be praying even more trhan most dutiful sons for the indefinite postponement of London Bridge, after which the purse strings of the Duchy of Lancaster estate are going to be fastened against him
Bad day for poshos all round.
For once they have captured the mood of the nation perfectly.
Being gaslighted by the PM is the last thing anyone needs right now.
A political arrangement in which sister parties run separately in different states or provinces within one country, with their own manifestos and accommodating differences in policy and outlook, is not unprecedented. It could work.
Insofar as I can see from down here, the SNP has two trump cards to play with the electorate: independence, and standing up for Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives can make a much more plausible pitch on the latter point if they repudiate the English party and strike out on their own.
Scottish Unionists would clearly rather that devolution had never happened, but they are where they are. They would, one assumes, infinitely prefer Home Rule to the end of Britain, and such a half-in, half-out arrangement could retail well with the kind of middle-class voters who don't particularly love the Union or rule from London, but can recognise some benefits to the arrangement and are afraid that outright separation would make Brexit look like a cake walk and leave them significantly poorer.
It would also be harder for the Nationalists to argue that outright independence is essential if the Scottish Parliament were to end up with control of most of its own tax revenues as well as domestic policy, and a rupture therefore entailed abandoning a common defence, a common currency (and contingent system of transfer payments,) a seamless and borderless free trade area, but not very much else.
Some distance from their political brethren down South would give the Unionists the time and the space to move towards such a position.
oer, Sir Kireir Starmer and Owen PattersonShe's a Gray, not a Grey.
P.S. Some dimwit at Sky today misspelled Keir's name on a the caption, during PMQs
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/09/eric-gill-the-body-ditchling-exhibition-rachel-cooke
Much of what Westminster now does no longer affects Scots anyway, see Covid rules now set in Holyrood not London
That sounds quite a 'one' you had. More ERG than One Nation by the sounds of it.
- Desire to mate with everything
- Habit of making bad decisions with little consequence (car)
- Rule beaker (cat flap)
Edit: Probably not a massive hypocrite though? And I think remembered rather more fondly?
If we destroy the art of every artist with moral failings (in contemporary eyes), we won't have a lot left. Most of that Renaissance stuff will have to go, for a start. And virtually ANYTHING Greek or Roman
To show how Woke we are, we shouldn't return the Elgin Marbles to the Parthenon, we should tip that pederastic rubbish in the Thames, thus solving two problems in one
"I don't believe it should be left to the findings of a civil servant to determine the future of the prime minister and indeed who governs this country."
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1481314932239089665
Exactly this. Tory MPs need to "man up" and do the right thing
The effect is a ‘win’ for Virginia Roberts Giuffre – she can continue her quest for justice in open court
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prince-andrew-ruling-virginia-roberts-giuffre-b1991666.html
The likes of the Guardian fully on the side of ripping down Colston statue will be firmly against this guy smashing up this statue.
Time will show that the Colston verdict was deeply pernicious and irresponsible
There are no Johnson loyalists who will fight a civil war in the party on his behalf if he is pushed out, and I don't see what significant change of policy would follow from a change of PM at this stage. No new PM is going to make a drastic change of policy on Brexit - this is very different from 1990 when it was felt that Thatcher was brought down by the pro-Europeans.