Decision to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of #Ukraine as independent would be a serious escalation by Kremlin. It would be a clear and grave violation of international law and the territorial integrity of Ukraine🇺🇦. Donetsk and Luhansk are and will be part of Ukraine. 1/2
This decision would also end the Minsk agreements. By saying "no" to a political solution based on the Minsk agreements, the Kremlin shuts the door on diplomacy and creates an excuse for war. 2/2
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it and b) ultra Remainers throught they could get it overturne
2) We are a functional trading nation. As evidenced by the stock on the shelves of every supermarket I go to...
There’s no evidence May ever considered a cross-party solution for a moment.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Not to shout it down, but have you any evidence? I suspect your contact would not like to be on the record, or to be named, even on such a niche forum as pb.
Who is he/she accusing of this misogyny? And why would it make a difference?
Putin to decide today on recognising Donbass independence apparently.
Was the 'today' in question two months ago?
I posted this in the previous thread before I noticed there was a new one (thanks me for opening a tab then not going back to it for 40 minutes - well done!)
---
Somewhat related - but it seems alt-right/qanon/definitely-not-russian-trolls-world is ablaze with tomorrows date marking 'the return of Pluto' and that being the date everything kicks off. Something to do with Pluto doing the same thing at the 'founding of the United States' in 1776 (ymmv). And something else to do with the fall of the Roman Empire. I gave up trying to wrap my head around it.
It's very strange, even by that worlds standards. But they are certainly quite excited about it and convinced it relates to Ukraine and all-round family values tough guy Putin's timing of events.
Margaret Ferrier (suspended SNP) asks what the U.K. govt has done with allies to protect minorities including LGBTQ+ in the event of a Russian invasion……
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Perfectly possible. The way in which Theresa's deal was pummelled by her own side seemed less about reasoned objections and more about the unhinged fervour that had possessed the Tories at that time. And remember: Boris was enthusiastically for the deal until he was against it.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it and b) ultra Remainers throught they could get it overturne
2) We are a functional trading nation. As evidenced by the stock on the shelves of every supermarket I go to...
There’s no evidence May ever considered a cross-party solution for a moment.
Indeed. This is also very true. Which is quite ironic when you consider that the original vote to join the EEC involved a coalition of moderate Labour and moderate Conservatives. The anti-EU boneheads on both wings, like Philip (Bartholomew) will always be extremists. But consensus was there for the taking.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
In no way am I suggesting you are lying. However, I have no way of knowing if what you say is the truth. You are an anonymous poster on a politics and betting forum. You are claiming to know someone at the heart of power in the land.
Yet Corbyn's Labour was ahead by ten points in the polls before Boris was elected.
Funny how that is swiftly forgotten.
Although wasn't he ten points ahead at 30% in the polls?
So the issue was more the fracturing of the Conservative vote, rather than the popularity of Corbyn.
There is also the Fishing (or was it Quincel) maxim that polling 3 years out from an expected election primarily reflects government popularity, and opposition only comes back into focus more when the election is expected within a year.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
You really are unpleasant and unnecessarily personal
I am far from right wing and even voted remain and want Boris replaced
You make a claim from an unnamed source and it is clearly nonsense to those of us who were on here every moment of that period
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Not to shout it down, but have you any evidence? I suspect your contact would not like to be on the record, or to be named, even on such a niche forum as pb.
Who is he/she accusing of this misogyny? And why would it make a difference?
I can't name them. They're still there.
I think the point being made was that Theresa May built up ire against her 'dithering' and general lack of decisiveness over the negotiations, which was perceived less than favourably by her male MPs ...
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it and b) ultra Remainers throught they could get it overturne
2) We are a functional trading nation. As evidenced by the stock on the shelves of every supermarket I go to...
As witnessed by the utter chaos at our ports as we try and implement only part of the red tape fiasco we insisted on.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
You make a claim from an unnamed source and it is clearly nonsense to those of us who were on here every moment of that period
You were on here. Lol.
My source was there. Not just in parliament but ...
I shall leave it there.
p.s. Maybe if you don't want a robust response, next time don't just sit on your backside and tell someone it's nonsense. Just occasionally someone might actually have something interesting to tell you whilst you sit in your Welsh armchair.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it and b) ultra Remainers throught they could get it overturne
2) We are a functional trading nation. As evidenced by the stock on the shelves of every supermarket I go to...
As witnessed by the utter chaos at our ports as we try and implement only part of the red tape fiasco we insisted on.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
You make a claim from an unnamed source and it is clearly nonsense to those of us who were on here every moment of that period
You were on here. Lol.
My source was there. Not just in parliament but ...
I shall leave it there.
p.s. Maybe if you don't want a robust response, next time don't just sit on your backside and tell someone it's nonsense. Just occasionally someone might actually have something interesting to tell you whilst you sit in your Welsh armchair.
Robust is one thing, insulting and disrespecting a poster because they are nearly 80 is not
I posted at the time that Brexit required the wisdom of Solomon to enact.
Instead, we got Theresa May. Admittedly she was better than Boris Johnson or Andrea Leadsom, but she wasn’t up to the task (perhaps nobody was).
In the shock, horror, and glee of the post-Brexit period, she did have considerable goodwill from the press and indeed from her own party.
She frittered this away by alienating Remainers, conducting herself in a way that generated hard Brexit paranoia, and making various real positioning and negotiating errors on the advice of her idiot-in-chief Nick Timothy.
I believe she was a woman of duty and integrity, and one feels sympathy for her given the way she was treated by her party, but ultimately she is one of several “guilty men” of Brexit.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
She's a great writer and it's an interesting article. There's definitely an issue with airing this topic and it needs to be resolved.
Your stuff about "Woke Wars" is still of course errant nonsense.
FWIW I agree with Freeman, JK Rowling and, I suspect, >95% of the population on this. Mrs P. who is much more left-wing than me is also with Freeman etc. so sadly neither of us qualifies as truly 'Woke'. I'll get over it.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
I mean, this is why you got a robust response. I know my source. So to have some bloke armchair critic in north Wales dismiss out of hand something which has been discussed with me from the heart of parliament in all seriousness is irritating.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
Margaret Ferrier (suspended SNP) asks what the U.K. govt has done with allies to protect minorities including LGBTQ+ in the event of a Russian invasion……
Well I suppose that ranks alongside the other 1,000,001 concerns to consider in the event of an invasion.
I guess if they were dogs and cats they could be airlifted out by the RAF.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
I mean, this is why you got a robust response. I know my source. So to have some bloke armchair critic in north Wales dismiss out of hand something which has been discussed with me from the heart of parliament in all seriousness is irritating.
p.s. this bit hasn't been said to me and is entirely of my own volition as a follow-up and it's a just musing on my own part to take it a stage further:
If Michael Gove had presented that deal to Parliament it probably would have got through.
(You can dismiss this bit out of hand 'cos it comes from me!)
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
The second major contribution by one Jeremy Corbyn to achieving a hard Brexit.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
You make a claim from an unnamed source and it is clearly nonsense to those of us who were on here every moment of that period
You were on here. Lol.
My source was there. Not just in parliament but ...
I shall leave it there.
p.s. Maybe if you don't want a robust response, next time don't just sit on your backside and tell someone it's nonsense. Just occasionally someone might actually have something interesting to tell you whilst you sit in your Welsh armchair.
How's your projection on Johnson's exit going? ;-)
p.s. this bit hasn't been said to me and is entirely of my own volition as a follow-up and it's a just musing on my own part to take it a stage further:
If Michael Gove had presented that deal to Parliament it probably would have got through.
(You can dismiss this bit out of hand 'cos it comes from me!)
Isn't it a bit easy to ask AFTER what would have changed people's minds?
It almost feels like an abdication of judgement. Those that opposed May's deal wanting a softer deal/Remain - should regret their decision. Particularly those of a soft Brexit persuasion.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Everyone south of the Tweed and Solway not having to put up with Ian Blackford's inane witterings is actually a very good argument for Scottish independence. Far better than most of the ones put forward, anyway.
BBC have been very, very pro Johnson's removal of restrictions today, with little or no critique. Incoming Tory poll lead?
BBC bulletins are once again mainly starting with "Boris Johnson says". Big Dog is saved isn't he?
Boris is, and always has been, going nowhere. As I have said repeatedly on this forum from the very beginning despite regular flamings from the likes of Ishmael. And I was right. Again.
p.s. this bit hasn't been said to me and is entirely of my own volition as a follow-up and it's a just musing on my own part to take it a stage further:
If Michael Gove had presented that deal to Parliament it probably would have got through.
(You can dismiss this bit out of hand 'cos it comes from me!)
He did present it to parliament.
In general I agree with you that someone else could have got it through, but I don't think Michael Gove would have been the one to do it, at least not in that parliament.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
I believe that you were told it, most likely by someone trolling you by playing to your bigotry,
BBC have been very, very pro Johnson's removal of restrictions today, with little or no critique. Incoming Tory poll lead?
BBC bulletins are once again mainly starting with "Boris Johnson says". Big Dog is saved isn't he?
Boris is, and always has been, going nowhere. As I have said repeatedly on this forum from the very beginning despite regular flamings from the likes of Ishmael. And I was right. Again.
He still has one test ahead and that's if he gets fined or not.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
Indeed - but the problem was that Corbyn was perhaps the one leader who made such cross party cooperation impossible. Any other leader.....
Another problem was that a number of the Remainers couldn't bring themselves to vote for any kind of BREXIT, hoping against hope that something would turn up.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She's a great writer and it's an interesting article. There's definitely an issue with airing this topic and it needs to be resolved.
Your stuff about "Woke Wars" is still of course errant nonsense.
FWIW I agree with Freeman, JK Rowling and, I suspect, >95% of the population on this. Mrs P. who is much more left-wing than me is also with Freeman etc. so sadly neither of us qualifies as truly 'Woke'. I'll get over it.
If this is correct, it’s catastrophic for the UK’s ability to ensure adequate Covid surveillance, outbreak management etc in future. To allow significant dismantling of the testing infrastructure built up in last 2 years would be inexcusable negligence given ongoing risks.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now (I don't mean the timing; I'm sure we can all agree on the motivation for that). The message seems to be that the government still wants you to isolate if you have covid, but it won't support you to find out if you have it, or help protect you from an employer who wants you to work, and it return it will repeal the laws that require you to isolate. We should all be sensible and exercise "personal responsibility" which seems to mean paying for our own tests and self-isolating if we get covid, and thereby we will "get our confidence back".
So what does he actually want people to do: test (at own expense) and isolate (as they currently do), or stop testing and isolating? If the former, how does that count as liberation or "getting our confidence back"? If the latter, why not just get rid of the guidance and be honest that the intention is to remove controls on covid spread?
She's a great writer and it's an interesting article. There's definitely an issue with airing this topic and it needs to be resolved.
Your stuff about "Woke Wars" is still of course errant nonsense.
FWIW I agree with Freeman, JK Rowling and, I suspect, >95% of the population on this. Mrs P. who is much more left-wing than me is also with Freeman etc. so sadly neither of us qualifies as truly 'Woke'. I'll get over it.
Not sure about 95%, but yes, most people would agree with Hadley's view. But that's not the point, is it? What percentage of Labour party members agree? What percentage of Labour MPs agree? What does the leader of the Labour Party think?
As a result, many on the Left would prefer that this debate about gender, with older feminists on one side and gender ideologues on the other, was not happening at all, because it doesn’t fit into the good versus bad dichotomy with which the Left frames the world. So they tell themselves that this is a “niche” issue and “normal women” (ie, women not on Twitter or Mumsnet) don’t know or care about it.
You just know this is going to be big at the next election. The Tories will make sure of it.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
If this is correct, it’s catastrophic for the UK’s ability to ensure adequate Covid surveillance, outbreak management etc in future. To allow significant dismantling of the testing infrastructure built up in last 2 years would be inexcusable negligence given ongoing risks.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now (I don't mean the timing; I'm sure we can all agree on the motivation for that). The message seems to be that the government still wants you to isolate if you have covid, but it won't support you to find out if you have it, or help protect you from an employer who wants you to work, and it return it will repeal the laws that require you to isolate. We should all be sensible and exercise "personal responsibility" which seems to mean paying for our own tests and self-isolating if we get covid, and thereby we will "get our confidence back".
So what does he actually want people to do: test (at own expense) and isolate (as they currently do), or stop testing and isolating? If the former, how does that count as liberation or "getting our confidence back"? If the latter, why not just get rid of the guidance and be honest that the intention is to remove controls on covid spread?
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now (I don't mean the timing; I'm sure we can all agree on the motivation for that). The message seems to be that the government still wants you to isolate if you have covid, but it won't support you to find out if you have it, or help protect you from an employer who wants you to work, and it return it will repeal the laws that require you to isolate. We should all be sensible and exercise "personal responsibility" which seems to mean paying for our own tests and self-isolating if we get covid, and thereby we will "get our confidence back".
So what does he actually want people to do: test (at own expense) and isolate (as they currently do), or stop testing and isolating? If the former, how does that count as liberation or "getting our confidence back"? If the latter, why not just get rid of the guidance and be honest that the intention is to remove controls on covid spread?
The intention, AFAICT, is that the public should treat it like any other respiratory infection. Hopefully the curse of presenteeism can be removed so that "I can't come in, I have a cold" is acceptable.
Some hard evidence for long Covid (which by definition will take some time to parse out).
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease....
Is he about to recognise the puppet statelets in Eastern Ukraine, I wonder?
Almost certainly - and then respond with "military aid" to them. AKA invade Ukraine to the self declared boundaries of the puppets - which means taking quite a bit of Ukrainian territory beyond the current disputed areas.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
My point was more about the sexism subtext of Heathener’s point which is frankly BS.
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now (I don't mean the timing; I'm sure we can all agree on the motivation for that). The message seems to be that the government still wants you to isolate if you have covid, but it won't support you to find out if you have it, or help protect you from an employer who wants you to work, and it return it will repeal the laws that require you to isolate. We should all be sensible and exercise "personal responsibility" which seems to mean paying for our own tests and self-isolating if we get covid, and thereby we will "get our confidence back".
So what does he actually want people to do: test (at own expense) and isolate (as they currently do), or stop testing and isolating? If the former, how does that count as liberation or "getting our confidence back"? If the latter, why not just get rid of the guidance and be honest that the intention is to remove controls on covid spread?
You expect honesty from Boris Johnson?
No of course not, and to hear such a narcissistic exceptionalist suggest that "personal responsibility" is all that's required is probably the most insulting part of all. But I don't understand who the dishonesty is aimed at. The MPs who want him to scrap isolation rules don't think controls are needed - there are plenty of people on here who have consistently argued the same and while I'm not sure they are right, they hold a coherent and thought through position. So why not just do it "properly" and say "living with covid means that we don't monitor and control it any differently" to any illness?
Is he about to recognise the puppet statelets in Eastern Ukraine, I wonder?
Almost certainly - and then respond with "military aid" to them. AKA invade Ukraine to the boundaries in question - which means taking quite a bit of Ukrainian territory beyond the current disputed areas.
There may be a caesura between recognition and “military aid”.
Recognition unto itself is a gross violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and he may be hoping he can provoke rump-Ukraine into actions which must be “retaliated against”.
Some hard evidence for long Covid (which by definition will take some time to parse out).
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease....
Given the nastiness with which COVID can fuck with the lungs, and the history of lung diseases/damage putting massive strain on the rest of the cardio-vascular system, I find this horribly unsurprising.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
No I think you are right. I have been dividing it into "Brexit" - the act of leaving the European Union as mandated by the referendum, and "BREXIT", the unicorn of whatever description you like which is worshipped as a deity by the various pro-Brexit groups who singularly fail to recognise they all worship Mooby the Golden Calf despite seeing different things and giving it different names.
Brexit is finished and done, so there is no way back. At the same time BREXIT has tied us into a big knot and it keeps tightening. We're going to have to reverse many of the measures enacted and not implement other measures planned for later this year.
Two examples of this. The Norniron issue where all sides agree that the separation of GB from NI was bloody stupid and has caused both a massive shift in trade patterns and economic activity but also a worrying lurch back towards tribalism and the troubles. It doesn't work, can't be made to work and will have to be reversed. Triggering Article 16 - the red meat that Big Dog wants to throw to his backbench ferrets - is the start of finding a permanent solution, not a permanent solution itself as some think.
And then we have the GB - EU Border Operating Model which doesn't work at a fundamental level. If nothing else the economic depressing effects of both applying billions in costs onto to UK businesses and reducing our ability to import / export with our biggest markets are the antithesis of what Brexiteer Tories believe in. They want BREXIT but not like this. So as with Norniron it will have to be unpicked and replaced.
Politics doesn't change the fact that close trading ties with all parties with minimal barriers impeding us is the winning solution. A way will have to be found because it will have to be found. Not so much a political Status Quo Ante Bellum, but close to it from a trading perspective.
Some hard evidence for long Covid (which by definition will take some time to parse out).
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease....
Given the nastiness with which COVID can fuck with the lungs, and the history of lung diseases/damage putting massive strain on the rest of the cardio-vascular system, I find this horribly unsurprising.
How many cases of COVID are "acute" - a heavy cold? flue-level? Hospitalisation? Ventilation?
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now (I don't mean the timing; I'm sure we can all agree on the motivation for that). The message seems to be that the government still wants you to isolate if you have covid, but it won't support you to find out if you have it, or help protect you from an employer who wants you to work, and it return it will repeal the laws that require you to isolate. We should all be sensible and exercise "personal responsibility" which seems to mean paying for our own tests and self-isolating if we get covid, and thereby we will "get our confidence back".
So what does he actually want people to do: test (at own expense) and isolate (as they currently do), or stop testing and isolating? If the former, how does that count as liberation or "getting our confidence back"? If the latter, why not just get rid of the guidance and be honest that the intention is to remove controls on covid spread?
The intention, AFAICT, is that the public should treat it like any other respiratory infection. Hopefully the curse of presenteeism can be removed so that "I can't come in, I have a cold" is acceptable.
But we don't have government guidance saying that people with colds should self-isolate.
Some hard evidence for long Covid (which by definition will take some time to parse out).
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease....
Not surprising as it can wreak absolute havoc on the Cardiovascular system. There are a lot of studies underway that will look at the lasting impact of this disease.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
My point was more about the sexism subtext of Heathener’s point which is frankly BS.
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
My point was that unless the UltraBrexiters suddenly voted for moderate BREXIT, then there was no way that *anyone* could have got the deal through on Conservative votes alone. Didn't matter if the Conservative leader was a man, a woman, trans or.....
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
My point was more about the sexism subtext of Heathener’s point which is frankly BS.
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
My point was that unless the UltraBrexiters suddenly voted for moderate BREXIT, then there was no way that *anyone* could have got the deal through on Conservative votes alone. Didn't matter if the Conservative leader was a man, a woman, trans or.....
This is correct.
As LBJ sort of said, politics is about counting, and May couldn’t count.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
My point was more about the sexism subtext of Heathener’s point which is frankly BS.
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
My point was that unless the UltraBrexiters suddenly voted for moderate BREXIT, then there was no way that *anyone* could have got the deal through on Conservative votes alone. Didn't matter if the Conservative leader was a man, a woman, trans or.....
IDK, it wasn't a million miles away by the end (including getting the votes of Boris and JRM, who discovered it was Brexit after all), so I think another leader might have been able to squeak on through. The question of whether Boris could have done it, by virtue of not having to put up with Boris attacking it, is an interesting one.
Is he about to recognise the puppet statelets in Eastern Ukraine, I wonder?
Almost certainly - and then respond with "military aid" to them. AKA invade Ukraine to the self declared boundaries of the puppets - which means taking quite a bit of Ukrainian territory beyond the current disputed areas.
Recognise statelets. Send help against barbaric fascist Ukrainians. Definitely not an invasion: the statelets were no longer part of Ukraine (indeed, justification a la Crimea will doubtless be found, eventually, to the effect that they were never really part of Ukraine in the first place.) Statelets organise referendums. 98% vote in favour of union with Russia. Job done.
Just a question of how far Vlad believes that the boundaries of the statelets extend, as you say: right the way round the Sea of Azov, or all the way to Odessa?
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
Turning it around, can the EU succeed in its own terms as a de facto nation building project for Europe? You might argue that that's not what the EU is, but plenty of people would disagree with you, so this question would come to a head sooner or later anyway.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
My point was more about the sexism subtext of Heathener’s point which is frankly BS.
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
My point was that unless the UltraBrexiters suddenly voted for moderate BREXIT, then there was no way that *anyone* could have got the deal through on Conservative votes alone. Didn't matter if the Conservative leader was a man, a woman, trans or.....
IDK, it wasn't a million miles away by the end (including getting the votes of Boris and JRM, who discovered it was Brexit after all), so I think another leader might have been able to squeak on through. The question of whether Boris could have done it, by virtue of not having to put up with Boris attacking it, is an interesting one.
She needed either opposition votes or massive abstentions. May got neither. She probably got the maximum number of *Conservative votes* for the deal.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
My point was more about the sexism subtext of Heathener’s point which is frankly BS.
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
My point was that unless the UltraBrexiters suddenly voted for moderate BREXIT, then there was no way that *anyone* could have got the deal through on Conservative votes alone. Didn't matter if the Conservative leader was a man, a woman, trans or.....
Even in this Covid statement, the PM is not taking anything for granted re that confidence vote. His No.10 policy chief is sitting next to lockdown sceptic and 1922 chairman Graham Brady, whips are out in force and his 4 news PPPs are all arranged behind him in the chamber.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
Further constraint is the double hurdle of needing a majority in the Commons (or it wouldn't pass) and a majority in the Conservative Party (or the leader putting any deal though wouldn't be in a position to put their deal through). And those two conditions were incredibly hard to meet simultaneously. If a plan was acceptable to Opposition MPs, it would have been (pretty much by definition) unacceptable to the ultra-Brexiters.
From that point of view, Boris'n'Dom were (gritted teeth) right, dammit. The only way forward was to increase the general level of paranoia so that people were willing to give a big majority to a purged Conservative Party to Just Make It All Go Away.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
I agree with your basic sentiment, but why keep the guidance in that case?
Actually, is it the price for his medical/scientific officers not collectively resigning?
Even in this Covid statement, the PM is not taking anything for granted re that confidence vote. His No.10 policy chief is sitting next to lockdown sceptic and 1922 chairman Graham Brady, whips are out in force and his 4 news PPPs are all arranged behind him in the chamber.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
Further constraint is the double hurdle of needing a majority in the Commons (or it wouldn't pass) and a majority in the Conservative Party (or the leader putting any deal though wouldn't be in a position to put their deal through). And those two conditions were incredibly hard to meet simultaneously. If a plan was acceptable to Opposition MPs, it would have been (pretty much by definition) unacceptable to the ultra-Brexiters.
From that point of view, Boris'n'Dom were (gritted teeth) right, dammit. The only way forward was to increase the general level of paranoia so that people were willing to give a big majority to a purged Conservative Party to Just Make It All Go Away.
Starting from the 2017 election result and everything that preceded it as given, you're quite correct.
But May was only backed into a corner because she made several unforced errors.
Some hard evidence for long Covid (which by definition will take some time to parse out).
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease....
Given the nastiness with which COVID can fuck with the lungs, and the history of lung diseases/damage putting massive strain on the rest of the cardio-vascular system, I find this horribly unsurprising.
How many cases of COVID are "acute" - a heavy cold? flue-level? Hospitalisation? Ventilation?
That's discussed in the paper. Look at table 8 of the supplementary information - basically the long term risk scales with the severity of the infection (as you might guess). There's a relatively small, but significant increased risk for non-hospitalised, which increases substantially for those hospitalised, and jumps again for those who went into intensive care.
Some hard evidence for long Covid (which by definition will take some time to parse out).
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease....
Given the nastiness with which COVID can fuck with the lungs, and the history of lung diseases/damage putting massive strain on the rest of the cardio-vascular system, I find this horribly unsurprising.
How many cases of COVID are "acute" - a heavy cold? flue-level? Hospitalisation? Ventilation?
Covid that is so bad it requires a chimney? Crikey.....
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now (I don't mean the timing; I'm sure we can all agree on the motivation for that). The message seems to be that the government still wants you to isolate if you have covid, but it won't support you to find out if you have it, or help protect you from an employer who wants you to work, and it return it will repeal the laws that require you to isolate. We should all be sensible and exercise "personal responsibility" which seems to mean paying for our own tests and self-isolating if we get covid, and thereby we will "get our confidence back".
So what does he actually want people to do: test (at own expense) and isolate (as they currently do), or stop testing and isolating? If the former, how does that count as liberation or "getting our confidence back"? If the latter, why not just get rid of the guidance and be honest that the intention is to remove controls on covid spread?
You expect honesty from Boris Johnson?
No of course not, and to hear such a narcissistic exceptionalist suggest that "personal responsibility" is all that's required is probably the most insulting part of all. But I don't understand who the dishonesty is aimed at. The MPs who want him to scrap isolation rules don't think controls are needed - there are plenty of people on here who have consistently argued the same and while I'm not sure they are right, they hold a coherent and thought through position. So why not just do it "properly" and say "living with covid means that we don't monitor and control it any differently" to any illness?
At a guess, it helps him sound more responsible to his elderly core vote. Minimum wage workers, who can't afford either to buy the tests or to isolate, can nevertheless be dismissed as selfish if they don't go to the trouble - and, since they neither own significant assets nor are likely to vote Conservative, they don't matter and can be ignored.
Personally, I think we have to let go of whole population mass testing, and we therefore might as well get on with it given the current trajectory of the pandemic, but the current sick pay regime - regardless of whether people need time off work with Covid or anything else - is pitiful. We're never going to deal, more broadly, with the presenteeism problem if employers aren't encouraged and assisted to tell unwell workers to stay away and provide proper sick pay.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
Turning it around, can the EU succeed in its own terms as a de facto nation building project for Europe? You might argue that that's not what the EU is, but plenty of people would disagree with you, so this question would come to a head sooner or later anyway.
I don’t know.
My gut says it’s impossible as it is not supported by various electorates, but I may be underestimating the willingness and ability of Brussels to enmesh nation states within techno-legal quicksand.
All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception. https://twitter.com/dananessel/status/1494833301110116355
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
No shouting necessary, its not true.
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Well with respect Philip you are bound to say that because you are such an ardent Brexiteer that you were even prepared to let the Troubles to return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying, so I'm told.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Still nonsense
Well, again, with respect I trust the person who was right at the centre of the MPs voting operation rather more than some old right wing codger who lives out in North Wales.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I'm not convinced labour was ever there to be reached out to.
Labour as a unified entity, no. But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
She failed, and that failure will be attached to her forever.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Depends what you mean by “succeed”.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
Turning it around, can the EU succeed in its own terms as a de facto nation building project for Europe? You might argue that that's not what the EU is, but plenty of people would disagree with you, so this question would come to a head sooner or later anyway.
Doesn't seem to me that it's the aim of many people in the EU to build a nation. I think a much more common mindset within the EU is to dilute nationalism as the default organising principle. You can see this in the way that the EU seeks to protect distinctive linguistic and cultural heritage instead of trying to homogenise, and the way it protect member rights structurally (see how the apportionment rules favour smaller nations).
As a wider point, the EU is like any other (putative) polity in that there is a diversity of strategic aims within its fold. You won't have to look hard to find some people who would love nothing more than to build a single European nation, but there's a separate question about whether they have the strategic reins. It doesn't look to me like that viewpoint is the strategic consensus, not by a long way.
Just catching up with today's news so apologies if this has already be done in detail, but I'm confused about the intention of Johnson's covid announcement just now
BoZo wants Covid to be over the same way Brexit is done...
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
Why do you think the Scandinavian countries are all following the same policy?
He doesn't think. He doesn't even believe in anything. He just whinges endlessly.
The real tragedy for the Tories is that St Theresa decided to hold a rerun election. They had a working majority and a new leader who had impetus behind her. And then hubris.
Had she not gone to the country then we'd have had a Brexit deal where the UK is still a functional trading nation, a government not corrupt and lying, and a fresh 5 year term elected at the height of the Covid "lets all pull together" phase and likely a thumping majority over Jezbollah.
1) May's Brexit was never getting through Parliament because a) Tory backbenchers wouldn't have voted for it
Whist I'm on the non-name-dropping let me add here that someone very, very, close to the seat of power in the tory party told me that if Theresa May's deal had been presented by a man and preferably a man who had voted Leave, then it would have gone through.
Intrinsically the deal itself was acceptable enough to pass.
This may be shouted down but it's true.
Do you think a peak Margaret Thatcher would have failed to get it through? Being a woman and all that…
Well, simple maths of May's majority and the number of Ultra-Brexiters says that unless
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal - Or every other MP In the Commons abstained - Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
My point was more about the sexism subtext of Heathener’s point which is frankly BS.
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
Last week on here I learnt that female named hurricanes cause more damage than male named hurricanes simply because the population take less precautions against a female named hurricane! And Labour have yet to elect a female leader.
So is it reasonable to expect a female PM has a tougher job? Almost certainly.
Was that the only problem with May as the sales person for the deal, not at all. I think most leading Brexiteer Tories could have got Mays deal through, male or female.
Even in this Covid statement, the PM is not taking anything for granted re that confidence vote. His No.10 policy chief is sitting next to lockdown sceptic and 1922 chairman Graham Brady, whips are out in force and his 4 news PPPs are all arranged behind him in the chamber.
All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception. https://twitter.com/dananessel/status/1494833301110116355
Every sperm is sacred Every sperm is great If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate
Comments
Decision to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of #Ukraine as independent would be a serious escalation by Kremlin. It would be a clear and grave violation of international law and the territorial integrity of Ukraine🇺🇦. Donetsk and Luhansk are and will be part of Ukraine. 1/2
This decision would also end the Minsk agreements. By saying "no" to a political solution based on the Minsk agreements, the Kremlin shuts the door on diplomacy and creates an excuse for war. 2/2
https://twitter.com/kajakallas/status/1495796102368579587
The reasons that May's deal was unacceptable were manifest and well explained and argued over at the time. None of them involved genitalia.
Who is he/she accusing of this misogyny? And why would it make a difference?
---
Somewhat related - but it seems alt-right/qanon/definitely-not-russian-trolls-world is ablaze with tomorrows date marking 'the return of Pluto' and that being the date everything kicks off. Something to do with Pluto doing the same thing at the 'founding of the United States' in 1776 (ymmv). And something else to do with the fall of the Roman Empire. I gave up trying to wrap my head around it.
It's very strange, even by that worlds standards. But they are certainly quite excited about it and convinced it relates to Ukraine and all-round family values tough guy Putin's timing of events.
What you won't understand is expediency. At the time of the crunch vote there were, in fact, sufficient Tory MPs prepared to hold their noses and vote it through. I'm not saying they would have loved it but it was close enough.
What didn't help is that May herself didn't vote to Leave.
Anyway, what I've passed on is from someone an awful lot closer to the seat of power than you. Right at the heart of it in fact.
Corbyn obviously didn't help matters.
Prove it.
They knew that it could have gone through.
As GardenWalker says, Theresa really didn't help matters at all. She was terrible at consensus and never reached out to Labour.
I am far from right wing and even voted remain and want Boris replaced
You make a claim from an unnamed source and it is clearly nonsense to those of us who were on here every moment of that period
I think the point being made was that Theresa May built up ire against her 'dithering' and general lack of decisiveness over the negotiations, which was perceived less than favourably by her male MPs ...
I'd best leave it there.
My source was there. Not just in parliament but ...
I shall leave it there.
p.s. Maybe if you don't want a robust response, next time don't just sit on your backside and tell someone it's nonsense. Just occasionally someone might actually have something interesting to tell you whilst you sit in your Welsh armchair.
I can but I won't. It would ruin him.
Instead, we got Theresa May. Admittedly she was better than Boris Johnson or Andrea Leadsom, but she wasn’t up to the task (perhaps nobody was).
In the shock, horror, and glee of the post-Brexit period, she did have considerable goodwill from the press and indeed from her own party.
She frittered this away by alienating Remainers, conducting herself in a way that generated hard Brexit paranoia, and making various real positioning and negotiating errors on the advice of her idiot-in-chief Nick Timothy.
I believe she was a woman of duty and integrity, and one feels sympathy for her given the way she was treated by her party, but ultimately she is one of several “guilty men” of Brexit.
Your stuff about "Woke Wars" is still of course errant nonsense.
FWIW I agree with Freeman, JK Rowling and, I suspect, >95% of the population on this. Mrs P. who is much more left-wing than me is also with Freeman etc. so sadly neither of us qualifies as truly 'Woke'. I'll get over it.
I bid you all good day.
But in fact neither was the Conservative Party.
There was a parliamentary majority for a non-insane Brexit, and it was Theresa’s job to find it. She failed.
I guess if they were dogs and cats they could be airlifted out by the RAF.
If Michael Gove had presented that deal to Parliament it probably would have got through.
(You can dismiss this bit out of hand 'cos it comes from me!)
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1495805541150511114?t=kc1wNInb4RNErtyaaLMkqA&s=19
It almost feels like an abdication of judgement. Those that opposed May's deal wanting a softer deal/Remain - should regret their decision. Particularly those of a soft Brexit persuasion.
The harder question is whether anyone else could, can or will be able to succeed.
Who knew.
https://twitter.com/scotfax/status/1495806001899057155
BBC bulletins are once again mainly starting with "Boris Johnson says". Big Dog is saved isn't he?
In general I agree with you that someone else could have got it through, but I don't think Michael Gove would have been the one to do it, at least not in that parliament.
Brexit cannot succeed on most of its own terms, as they are mendacious and/or fallacious.
However I am optimistic (perhaps distance is assisting me here) that “a way” will be found through because in a way, it kind of has to?
Another problem was that a number of the Remainers couldn't bring themselves to vote for any kind of BREXIT, hoping against hope that something would turn up.
About ten posts down: Scottish independence.
I take it that Vlad hasn't sent the tanks rolling towards Kiev yet?
Some leaders listen to what scientists are saying - and others...
Quote Tweet
Nicola Sturgeon
@NicolaSturgeon
If this is correct, it’s catastrophic for the UK’s ability to ensure adequate Covid surveillance, outbreak management etc in future. To allow significant dismantling of the testing infrastructure built up in last 2 years would be inexcusable negligence given ongoing risks.
https://twitter.com/devisridhar/status/1495751716691750919
So what does he actually want people to do: test (at own expense) and isolate (as they currently do), or stop testing and isolating? If the former, how does that count as liberation or "getting our confidence back"? If the latter, why not just get rid of the guidance and be honest that the intention is to remove controls on covid spread?
As a result, many on the Left would prefer that this debate about gender, with older feminists on one side and gender ideologues on the other, was not happening at all, because it doesn’t fit into the good versus bad dichotomy with which the Left frames the world. So they tell themselves that this is a “niche” issue and “normal women” (ie, women not on Twitter or Mumsnet) don’t know or care about it.
You just know this is going to be big at the next election. The Tories will make sure of it.
- The Ultra-Brexiters nearly all voted for the deal
- Or every other MP In the Commons abstained
- Or a major chunk of Labour voted for.
Then the deal wasn't going to go through.
The only plausible way it would get through was cross-party support.
https://twitter.com/DevanSinha/status/1495785153750257665
General recognition that large parts can now be scaled back. Concern is the baby goes with the bathwater.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1495804009839538180
https://twitter.com/FirstSquawk/status/1495811094874669058?s=20&t=w_u7jY7iNmK6EYMVXjQTgg
https://www.ft.com/content/71982abb-a79d-4fb6-8f62-49ec5e9679c5
Helpfully, he attaches probabilities re: economy & markets over the next 12 months;
10% soft landing
40% fed slams on the brakes too late
30% fed gives up on meaningfully targeting inflation. Let’s economy run hot.
20% stagflation.
Long-term cardiovascular outcomes of COVID-19
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3
The cardiovascular complications of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are well described, but the post-acute cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have not yet been comprehensively characterized. Here we used national healthcare databases from the US Department of Veterans Affairs to build a cohort of 153,760 individuals with COVID-19, as well as two sets of control cohorts with 5,637,647 (contemporary controls) and 5,859,411 (historical controls) individuals, to estimate risks and 1-year burdens of a set of pre-specified incident cardiovascular outcomes. We show that, beyond the first 30 d after infection, individuals with COVID-19 are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease spanning several categories, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure and thromboembolic disease. These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care). Our results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are substantial. Care pathways of those surviving the acute episode of COVID-19 should include attention to cardiovascular health and disease....
It was the message not the messenger and to try and claim that it was because evil Tory chauvinists and sexists only want to do what other men want to do is actually pretty sexist in itself.
Recognition unto itself is a gross violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and he may be hoping he can provoke rump-Ukraine into actions which must be “retaliated against”.
Brexit is finished and done, so there is no way back. At the same time BREXIT has tied us into a big knot and it keeps tightening. We're going to have to reverse many of the measures enacted and not implement other measures planned for later this year.
Two examples of this. The Norniron issue where all sides agree that the separation of GB from NI was bloody stupid and has caused both a massive shift in trade patterns and economic activity but also a worrying lurch back towards tribalism and the troubles. It doesn't work, can't be made to work and will have to be reversed. Triggering Article 16 - the red meat that Big Dog wants to throw to his backbench ferrets - is the start of finding a permanent solution, not a permanent solution itself as some think.
And then we have the GB - EU Border Operating Model which doesn't work at a fundamental level. If nothing else the economic depressing effects of both applying billions in costs onto to UK businesses and reducing our ability to import / export with our biggest markets are the antithesis of what Brexiteer Tories believe in. They want BREXIT but not like this. So as with Norniron it will have to be unpicked and replaced.
Politics doesn't change the fact that close trading ties with all parties with minimal barriers impeding us is the winning solution. A way will have to be found because it will have to be found. Not so much a political Status Quo Ante Bellum, but close to it from a trading perspective.
As LBJ sort of said, politics is about counting, and May couldn’t count.
Just a question of how far Vlad believes that the boundaries of the statelets extend, as you say: right the way round the Sea of Azov, or all the way to Odessa?
So we will still be arguing about it a year from now as the bodies pile high
His No.10 policy chief is sitting next to lockdown sceptic and 1922 chairman Graham Brady, whips are out in force and his 4 news PPPs are all arranged behind him in the chamber.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1495812291228483586
From that point of view, Boris'n'Dom were (gritted teeth) right, dammit. The only way forward was to increase the general level of paranoia so that people were willing to give a big majority to a purged Conservative Party to Just Make It All Go Away.
Actually, is it the price for his medical/scientific officers not collectively resigning?
But May was only backed into a corner because she made several unforced errors.
Look at table 8 of the supplementary information - basically the long term risk scales with the severity of the infection (as you might guess). There's a relatively small, but significant increased risk for non-hospitalised, which increases substantially for those hospitalised, and jumps again for those who went into intensive care.
Personally, I think we have to let go of whole population mass testing, and we therefore might as well get on with it given the current trajectory of the pandemic, but the current sick pay regime - regardless of whether people need time off work with Covid or anything else - is pitiful. We're never going to deal, more broadly, with the presenteeism problem if employers aren't encouraged and assisted to tell unwell workers to stay away and provide proper sick pay.
My gut says it’s impossible as it is not supported by various electorates, but I may be underestimating the willingness and ability of Brussels to enmesh nation states within techno-legal quicksand.
https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1495736730548322310?s=20&t=w_u7jY7iNmK6EYMVXjQTgg
All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception.
https://twitter.com/dananessel/status/1494833301110116355
I think a much more common mindset within the EU is to dilute nationalism as the default organising principle. You can see this in the way that the EU seeks to protect distinctive linguistic and cultural heritage instead of trying to homogenise, and the way it protect member rights structurally (see how the apportionment rules favour smaller nations).
As a wider point, the EU is like any other (putative) polity in that there is a diversity of strategic aims within its fold. You won't have to look hard to find some people who would love nothing more than to build a single European nation, but there's a separate question about whether they have the strategic reins. It doesn't look to me like that viewpoint is the strategic consensus, not by a long way.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/why-have-female-hurricanes-killed-more-people-than-male-ones
So is it reasonable to expect a female PM has a tougher job? Almost certainly.
Was that the only problem with May as the sales person for the deal, not at all. I think most leading Brexiteer Tories could have got Mays deal through, male or female.
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate