Howdy, Stranger!

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

The June 23rd by-elections – what happened at GE2019 – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 22 in General
imageThe June 23rd by-elections – what happened at GE2019 – politicalbetting.com

You have to go back to November 7th 1991 to find a day when the Tories lost two Westminster by-elections on the same day. These were the LAB gain of Langbaurgh and the LD gain of Kincardine and Deeside. These were the last by-elections of the 1987-1992 Parliament. John Major went to the country five months later and won a surprise small majority winning back these two seats in the process.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,403
    "These were the last by-elections of the parliament, they went to the country 5 months later".

    Don't start any of that nonsense, OGH.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,051
    Second like that Tory woman?
  • Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    They voted to end free movement from the EU which they got
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,617
    2019 is a completely different world. No COVID and no CPI.

    Honiton LD Maj loads and they will lose it back at next GE.

    Wakefield yes LAB will win a by election for first time since 2012 and given CON maj is only about 9% will probably hold it at next GE.

    Long way to go to GE. Government is useless but lots of people still not convinced by LAB.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    So, what's our betting for the big fat cat that will be killed and thrown at the Red Wall on Friday lunchtime?

    Paedophiles to be blinded by hot poker?

    Dixon of Dock Green to return to our screens?

    One pound notes to return?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Andy_JS said:

    I've got the BBC election show for the 1991 by-elections on VHS video, which someone sent me a few years ago. I'll have to dig it out sometime.

    Top PB nerding!

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,078
    Thursday’s TIMES: Unions pile pressure on bosses after 7% pay deal” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539721805971202048/photo/1
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    One of the interesting aspects of RMT, is why other working folks don't look at the way the union has maintained decent levels of pay for years for its members in a way many others haven't (drivers can get £70K with overtime etc) and think... erm maybe we need a union.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 98,988
    Given Major lost 2 by elections in one day in 1991 and won in 1992 I doubt even a double loss on Thursday is fatal for Boris
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 8,377

    Would like to wish @david_herdson the very best of PB luck tomorrow!

    I hope he beats the Tories into third place.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    One of the interesting aspects of RMT, is why other working folks don't look at the way the union has maintained decent levels of pay for years for its members in a way many others haven't (drivers can get £70K with overtime etc) and think... erm maybe we need a union.
    Perhaps because other unions haven't been as successful, and because our London-based media has driven up rail strikes as a calamity to be resolved every time, while say a motorway closure - which probably causes more disruption to most of the nation - won't even make the news.

    Now that Londoners can work from home though, will the RMT be able to maintain the pressure for a resolution to be sought? Or will it be a case of people thinking "cool, I get to work from home today" and they move on? While the rest of the nation moves on, as we always have.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,266

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,078
    EXC:

    Ministers could be on brink of escalating dispute with new plans to curb overtime for strikers https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1539723234815385601/video/1
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    One of the interesting aspects of RMT, is why other working folks don't look at the way the union has maintained decent levels of pay for years for its members in a way many others haven't (drivers can get £70K with overtime etc) and think... erm maybe we need a union.
    Indeed.

    Would like to wish @david_herdson the very best of PB luck tomorrow!

    I hope he beats the Tories into third place.
    I am on Greens on third place as a value bet . They have done well recently, and get the dis grunted Labour lefties vote. I suspect it will be Akbar though.

    From last thread:
    Foxy said:

    My eve of poll betting position for tommorow. Best outcome on Wakefield is a Labour win, Greens in third place, with a sub 40% turnout and 35%+ Tory vote share, with a T+H Con win by less than 3 000 votes.

    It isn't an accumulator, but rather separate bets, with that the optimal betting outcome.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    HYUFD said:

    Given Major lost 2 by elections in one day in 1991 and won in 1992 I doubt even a double loss on Thursday is fatal for Boris

    I doubt it would be too, but I have this nagging sense that you recently claimed winning in 1992 was a bad thing? I think it was a point about how you shouldn't change an electorally successful leader, which although they won in 92 then led to a bunch of huge losses? So perhaps it should be fatal for him if he loses both?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961
  • eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,188

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    One of the interesting aspects of RMT, is why other working folks don't look at the way the union has maintained decent levels of pay for years for its members in a way many others haven't (drivers can get £70K with overtime etc) and think... erm maybe we need a union.
    Because few other sectors use backward technology to maximise unnecessary employment that could be automated away.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934

    So, what's our betting for the big fat cat that will be killed and thrown at the Red Wall on Friday lunchtime?

    Paedophiles to be blinded by hot poker?

    Dixon of Dock Green to return to our screens?

    One pound notes to return?

    Boris flies to Kyiv for vital meeting with Zelensky?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    Teachers looking for more than 9% says Newsnight union interviewee.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    There has been a lot of WFH for years, maybe?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Andy_JS said:

    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    I think they are still the value bet. It is a massive majority in a Tory heartland. I bought at longer odds though.
  • TresTres Posts: 964
    The way the government is handling Lynch there's gonna be a general strike by the end of the summer.
    Any odds on that?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,265
    HYUFD said:

    Given Major lost 2 by elections in one day in 1991 and won in 1992 I doubt even a double loss on Thursday is fatal for Boris

    By-elections in and of themselves aren't usually the game changers but they can be part of a sequence of events which can end a Prime Ministerial tenure.

    Eastbourne was October 18th 1990 - Howe resigned two weeks later. The fact is backbenchers could see what might happen if Thatcher remained their leader and how they might be "saved" with another leader first Heseltine and then Major.

    The difference between then and now (as you will no doubt point out) is none of the potential successors to Johnson appears to poll any better than the Prime Minister and some would make matters much worse for the Conservatives so they will stick with Boris Johnson for now or until it becomes clear there's an alternative who would be more likely to preserve the seats of backbenchers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    Tres said:

    The way the government is handling Lynch there's gonna be a general strike by the end of the summer.
    Any odds on that?

    I don't think that possible, but lots of other unions are balloting, or are shortly to do so, even the supine BMA.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    Andy_JS said:

    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    One thing's for sure, it won't be because anyone has any knowledge of what tomorrow's result will actually be.

    It would be interesting to see a chart of the odds in the 48 hours before the North Shropshire result.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    Tres said:

    The way the government is handling Lynch there's gonna be a general strike by the end of the summer.
    Any odds on that?

    They'd love that. At least the thought of it.

    They didn't get to fight the glorious battles of the past, so create them here in the present!
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,188
    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,934
    EPG said:

    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.

    "...the white van did for the NUM..." What does that mean?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012
    EPG said:

    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.

    Though that's the latest place where the government have messed up.

    One of the reasons that Maggie won in 1984/5 was that she went to considerable effort to prepare the ground. There were big enough stockpiles of coal in the right places to make sure that a miner's strike was endurable- which is roughly what happened.

    If the government was serious about crushing the RMT, it needed to be backing, evangelising, supporting WFH. For it's own reasons, it decided not to. They have picked a fight without appearing to have a plan for how to win it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,193
    EPG said:

    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.

    Or maybe they just want to minimise their real-terms pay cut.
  • eekeek Posts: 19,266

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
    Bozo the clown is stupid enough to be fighting multiple battles with the RMT at the same time.

    So as soon as the money issue is solved (which seems to be the bit Shapps is talking about) the next problem will all be about safety

    A note today that the mail was talking about people not being able to work on different lines - yep it’s like planes, you don’t want engineers who know how a Boeing 747 works working on an airbus 320 without some prior training.

    You don’t want people working on a different track when it has signals and power from a different supplier. Now that problem was something that network rail wanted to standardise years ago but prior Tory Governments but the Kabosh on that plan
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,012
    edited June 22
    kle4 said:

    Tres said:

    The way the government is handling Lynch there's gonna be a general strike by the end of the summer.
    Any odds on that?

    They'd love that. At least the thought of it.

    They didn't get to fight the glorious battles of the past, so create them here in the present!
    "This could be my Falklands, Sir Humphrey."

    "Yes, and you could be General Galtieri, Prime Minister."
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    Russell Brand tackles the inflation problem.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox2IY0hmAO0
  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 336
    eek said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
    Bozo the clown is stupid enough to be fighting multiple battles with the RMT at the same time.

    So as soon as the money issue is solved (which seems to be the bit Shapps is talking about) the next problem will all be about safety

    A note today that the mail was talking about people not being able to work on different lines - yep it’s like planes, you don’t want engineers who know how a Boeing 747 works working on an airbus 320 without some prior training.

    You don’t want people working on a different track when it has signals and power from a different supplier. Now that problem was something that network rail wanted to standardise years ago but prior Tory Governments but the Kabosh on that plan
    Other subject of planes why does a train driver earn more than an airline pilot?
  • TresTres Posts: 964

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
    Bozo the clown is stupid enough to be fighting multiple battles with the RMT at the same time.

    So as soon as the money issue is solved (which seems to be the bit Shapps is talking about) the next problem will all be about safety

    A note today that the mail was talking about people not being able to work on different lines - yep it’s like planes, you don’t want engineers who know how a Boeing 747 works working on an airbus 320 without some prior training.

    You don’t want people working on a different track when it has signals and power from a different supplier. Now that problem was something that network rail wanted to standardise years ago but prior Tory Governments but the Kabosh on that plan
    Other subject of planes why does a train driver earn more than an airline pilot?
    Because train driving is more dangerous?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.




  • EPG said:

    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.

    Though that's the latest place where the government have messed up.

    One of the reasons that Maggie won in 1984/5 was that she went to considerable effort to prepare the ground. There were big enough stockpiles of coal in the right places to make sure that a miner's strike was endurable- which is roughly what happened.

    If the government was serious about crushing the RMT, it needed to be backing, evangelising, supporting WFH. For it's own reasons, it decided not to. They have picked a fight without appearing to have a plan for how to win it.
    If the government was smart they'd have realised that their attempts to crush WFH had failed and decided to turn lemons into lemonade.

    As it is, the government is more like a dog chasing a car, it wouldn't know what to do if it caught one, it just does things.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,138
    HYUFD said:

    Given Major lost 2 by elections in one day in 1991 and won in 1992 I doubt even a double loss on Thursday is fatal for Boris

    Perhaps not, but this is more the fact that Boris won't resign than any similarity.
    In July 1991 Major had been PM for considerably less than a year. Here Johnson is nearing three.
    Major could ride it out as still needing time to bed in. Johnson has no such excuse.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,615

    EPG said:

    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.

    Though that's the latest place where the government have messed up.

    One of the reasons that Maggie won in 1984/5 was that she went to considerable effort to prepare the ground. There were big enough stockpiles of coal in the right places to make sure that a miner's strike was endurable- which is roughly what happened.

    If the government was serious about crushing the RMT, it needed to be backing, evangelising, supporting WFH. For it's own reasons, it decided not to. They have picked a fight without appearing to have a plan for how to win it.
    If the government was smart they'd have realised that their attempts to crush WFH had failed and decided to turn lemons into lemonade.

    As it is, the government is more like a dog chasing a car, it wouldn't know what to do if it caught one, it just does things.
    I rather like the dog chasing car analogy.
  • Thursday's Express: "It's only fair! Rishi defends £1,000 boost to pensions"

    Aha, we locked down to save them and our student loans get jacked up 11%, fuck off you twat
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.

    She was pretty combative on the subject of the government getting rid of our human rights protections.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 6,615
    Tres said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
    Bozo the clown is stupid enough to be fighting multiple battles with the RMT at the same time.

    So as soon as the money issue is solved (which seems to be the bit Shapps is talking about) the next problem will all be about safety

    A note today that the mail was talking about people not being able to work on different lines - yep it’s like planes, you don’t want engineers who know how a Boeing 747 works working on an airbus 320 without some prior training.

    You don’t want people working on a different track when it has signals and power from a different supplier. Now that problem was something that network rail wanted to standardise years ago but prior Tory Governments but the Kabosh on that plan
    Other subject of planes why does a train driver earn more than an airline pilot?
    Because train driving is more dangerous?
    Why?
  • Tres said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
    Bozo the clown is stupid enough to be fighting multiple battles with the RMT at the same time.

    So as soon as the money issue is solved (which seems to be the bit Shapps is talking about) the next problem will all be about safety

    A note today that the mail was talking about people not being able to work on different lines - yep it’s like planes, you don’t want engineers who know how a Boeing 747 works working on an airbus 320 without some prior training.

    You don’t want people working on a different track when it has signals and power from a different supplier. Now that problem was something that network rail wanted to standardise years ago but prior Tory Governments but the Kabosh on that plan
    Other subject of planes why does a train driver earn more than an airline pilot?
    Because train driving is more dangerous?
    Presumably taxi drivers are paid even more then?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    kjh said:

    EPG said:

    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.

    Though that's the latest place where the government have messed up.

    One of the reasons that Maggie won in 1984/5 was that she went to considerable effort to prepare the ground. There were big enough stockpiles of coal in the right places to make sure that a miner's strike was endurable- which is roughly what happened.

    If the government was serious about crushing the RMT, it needed to be backing, evangelising, supporting WFH. For it's own reasons, it decided not to. They have picked a fight without appearing to have a plan for how to win it.
    If the government was smart they'd have realised that their attempts to crush WFH had failed and decided to turn lemons into lemonade.

    As it is, the government is more like a dog chasing a car, it wouldn't know what to do if it caught one, it just does things.
    I rather like the dog chasing car analogy.
    Best not to when Mick Lynch is driving it...
  • kjh said:

    Tres said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
    Bozo the clown is stupid enough to be fighting multiple battles with the RMT at the same time.

    So as soon as the money issue is solved (which seems to be the bit Shapps is talking about) the next problem will all be about safety

    A note today that the mail was talking about people not being able to work on different lines - yep it’s like planes, you don’t want engineers who know how a Boeing 747 works working on an airbus 320 without some prior training.

    You don’t want people working on a different track when it has signals and power from a different supplier. Now that problem was something that network rail wanted to standardise years ago but prior Tory Governments but the Kabosh on that plan
    Other subject of planes why does a train driver earn more than an airline pilot?
    Because train driving is more dangerous?
    Why?
    Statistically it is
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460

    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.




    His job is a lot easier than being LOTO in fairness. Nuance is not needed.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 13,169

    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.

    Mick Lynch is becoming some kind of folk hero. I can imagine pop songs being written about him.
  • TresTres Posts: 964
    btw congratulations to the Daily Mail on finally running a story about mysterious Russians donating to the Tory party.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10939973/Russian-gives-30-000-Tories-wine-tasting-tour-fundraising-dinner.html

    Daily Mail journalists, you should really keep on digging......
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652

    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.

    Mick Lynch is becoming some kind of folk hero. I can imagine pop songs being written about him.
    Starmer's nightmare. A firebrand from the unions actually captures the public's anger over cost of living and leaves shadow cabinet gasping for air on the river bank.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    kle4 said:

    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.




    His job is a lot easier than being LOTO in fairness. Nuance is not needed.
    True.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944
    edited June 22

    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.

    Mick Lynch is becoming some kind of folk hero. I can imagine pop songs being written about him.
    He's got a name for rhyming.
    Actually. He's got a great name for his role full stop.
    Branded. Like Boris. Or Tony Blair. Or indeed John Major. Name for the situation. How important is that?
    Sir Kier Starmer doesn't cut it,.I'm afraid.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 27,307
    Tres said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
    Bozo the clown is stupid enough to be fighting multiple battles with the RMT at the same time.

    So as soon as the money issue is solved (which seems to be the bit Shapps is talking about) the next problem will all be about safety

    A note today that the mail was talking about people not being able to work on different lines - yep it’s like planes, you don’t want engineers who know how a Boeing 747 works working on an airbus 320 without some prior training.

    You don’t want people working on a different track when it has signals and power from a different supplier. Now that problem was something that network rail wanted to standardise years ago but prior Tory Governments but the Kabosh on that plan
    Other subject of planes why does a train driver earn more than an airline pilot?
    Because train driving is more dangerous?
    Because people see being an airline pilot as glamorous. So they spend a fortune of their own money learning to fly, learning to fly an airliner and then work (initially) for starvation wages that don't pay the loans for the training they did.

    This is sometimes referred to as 'Pay To Fly' or P2F
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326

    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.

    Mick Lynch is becoming some kind of folk hero. I can imagine pop songs being written about him.
    Starmer's nightmare. A firebrand from the unions actually captures the public's anger over cost of living and leaves shadow cabinet gasping for air on the river bank.
    Authenticity is the key, particularly when faced by a phoney. Learn from it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    kjh said:

    EPG said:

    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.

    Though that's the latest place where the government have messed up.

    One of the reasons that Maggie won in 1984/5 was that she went to considerable effort to prepare the ground. There were big enough stockpiles of coal in the right places to make sure that a miner's strike was endurable- which is roughly what happened.

    If the government was serious about crushing the RMT, it needed to be backing, evangelising, supporting WFH. For it's own reasons, it decided not to. They have picked a fight without appearing to have a plan for how to win it.
    If the government was smart they'd have realised that their attempts to crush WFH had failed and decided to turn lemons into lemonade.

    As it is, the government is more like a dog chasing a car, it wouldn't know what to do if it caught one, it just does things.
    I rather like the dog chasing car analogy.
    Big Dog is too fat to ever actually catch a car.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    edited June 22
    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    I think they are still the value bet. It is a massive majority in a Tory heartland. I bought at longer odds though.
    True but still this is my final prediction for Tiverton & Honiton:

    Liberal Democrats 46.9%
    Conservative 39.3%
    Labour 5.8%
    Green 3.4%
    Reform UK 3.1%
    Heritage Party 0.7%
    UKIP 0.5%
    For Britain 0.3%
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 148
    rcs1000 said:

    ohnotnow said:

    On the Excel front - it surprises me how little investment there is in training admin staff how to take advantage of it. I know people who use it who don't even realise you can do things like `SUM()` and so developers are paid to replicate Excel instead. To those users it's just a bit list of rows with no functionality beyond splitting them into columns.

    Yeah, but people often become impromptu developers and use Excel to build something incredibly complex and sophisticated.

    Oh yes.

    And broken.
    Indeed - but there's a lot of value missed in just being able to do `AVG(A1:A100)` for a lot of back-office admins. I'm in no way suggesting that people develop 1000 line convoluted vb script macros that run the business, but it's amazing how much low hanging fruit there is out there.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,475
    dixiedean said:

    Mick Lynch in action this evening.

    https://twitter.com/Rachael_Swindon/status/1539706505846464513


    The Shadow Attorney looks on wistfully as she watches someone finally take on this shower of clowns with gusto.

    Mick Lynch is becoming some kind of folk hero. I can imagine pop songs being written about him.
    He's got a name for rhyming.
    Actually. He's got a great name for his role full stop.
    Branded. Like Boris. Or Tony Blair. Or indeed John Major. Name for the situation. How important is that?
    Sir Kier Starmer doesn't cut it,.I'm afraid.
    Got to to get a couplet with ‘should cowards flinch’ going.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 2,205
    edited June 22

    Tres said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This week’s New EUROPEAN: “Six years after the referendum, that list of Brexit benefits in full:” #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1539713398803501056/photo/1


    It ended free movememt which is what the mainly working class Leave voters voted for
    Yes, to drive up wages for working class people via full employment and labour shortages.

    For example rail workers...
    Absolutely, where there is high demand, there will be high demand for staff, which will drive up wages. That is the free market in action.

    Unfortunately for the RMT, demand for railways hasn't been lower for many, many years now.
    So skilled working class folk can get shafted by the mega rich? That is a different type of Brexit to what the Red wall voted.

    It's hard to disagree with Mick Lynch, indeed he has a flair for pithy sayings:


    Skilled working class folk absolutely are getting better pay and conditions freely in the market because their skills are in high demand.

    The railways are not in high demand. Instead of making the railways even less in-demand, maybe the RMT could be co-operative and aim to help ensure people want to use the railways again, instead of railway staff being considered surplus to requirements?
    Rail passenger numbers are now at 90% of pre Covid levels.

    Yet demand should be 30-40% lower due to working from home.

    Leisure and longer journeys are at levels way higher than before covid.
    So should rail staff be getting paid 90% of their pre-Covid wages then?

    Perhaps frozen wages and 10% inflation would do the trick?
    Bozo the clown is stupid enough to be fighting multiple battles with the RMT at the same time.

    So as soon as the money issue is solved (which seems to be the bit Shapps is talking about) the next problem will all be about safety

    A note today that the mail was talking about people not being able to work on different lines - yep it’s like planes, you don’t want engineers who know how a Boeing 747 works working on an airbus 320 without some prior training.

    You don’t want people working on a different track when it has signals and power from a different supplier. Now that problem was something that network rail wanted to standardise years ago but prior Tory Governments but the Kabosh on that plan
    Other subject of planes why does a train driver earn more than an airline pilot?
    Because train driving is more dangerous?
    Because people see being an airline pilot as glamorous. So they spend a fortune of their own money learning to fly, learning to fly an airliner and then work (initially) for starvation wages that don't pay the loans for the training they did.

    This is sometimes referred to as 'Pay To Fly' or P2F
    Just to drive a 'bus...

    You'd have thought the same might apply to train drivers.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    It's funny how people love states rights when it works in their favor, and hate it when it doesn't....
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,578
    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    edited June 22

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    One thing's for sure, it won't be because anyone has any knowledge of what tomorrow's result will actually be.

    It would be interesting to see a chart of the odds in the 48 hours before the North Shropshire result.
    Courtesy of the pb header from the day before, https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/10145/con-ahead-in-the-betting-on-the-eve-of-north-shropshire-politicalbetting-com/p1
    or https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/12/15/con-ahead-in-the-betting-on-the-eve-of-north-shropshire/
    ...

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    One thing's for sure, it won't be because anyone has any knowledge of what tomorrow's result will actually be.

    It would be interesting to see a chart of the odds in the 48 hours before the North Shropshire result.
    Indeed.

    I will always remember the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, where Labour was at 1.01-1.02 on Betfair as the returning officer got up to speak... And the Libdems had won.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944
    CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    Or indeed drink alcohol.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    I think they are still the value bet. It is a massive majority in a Tory heartland. I bought at longer odds though.
    True but still this is my final prediction for Tiverton & Honiton:

    Liberal Democrats 46.9%
    Conservative 39.3%
    Labour 5.8%
    Green 3.4%
    Reform UK 3.1%
    Heritage Party 0.7%
    UKIP 0.5%
    For Britain 0.3%
    Sounds reasonable
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 4,487
    Andy_JS said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    I think they are still the value bet. It is a massive majority in a Tory heartland. I bought at longer odds though.
    True but still this is my final prediction for Tiverton & Honiton:

    Liberal Democrats 46.9%
    Conservative 39.3%
    Labour 5.8%
    Green 3.4%
    Reform UK 3.1%
    Heritage Party 0.7%
    UKIP 0.5%
    For Britain 0.3%
    Could you be more precise, please? :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    dixiedean said:

    CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    Or indeed drink alcohol.
    Are you kidding? That's so dangerous!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383

    EPG said:

    Seriously, what empowered the RMT is what empowered the NUM until the 80s. A fear that the most productive sectors of the economy would be crippled by a strike, whether that be advanced manufacturing or London professional services. The white van did for the NUM, and I think it's likely in the 2020s that WFH will eventually do for the RMT.

    Though that's the latest place where the government have messed up.

    One of the reasons that Maggie won in 1984/5 was that she went to considerable effort to prepare the ground. There were big enough stockpiles of coal in the right places to make sure that a miner's strike was endurable- which is roughly what happened.

    If the government was serious about crushing the RMT, it needed to be backing, evangelising, supporting WFH. For it's own reasons, it decided not to. They have picked a fight without appearing to have a plan for how to win it.
    Spot on.

    Maggie (& Lawson & Howe) knew a strike was coming and knew they had to be prepared.
  • The Tories have got this strike badly wrong I feel.

    Nurses, doctors, Uber drivers, barristers now joining the strike. Public opinion is only going one way IMHO
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,578
    edited June 22
    rcs1000 said:

    CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    I thought it was all about avoiding a situation where religious fundamentalists got into power and forced women to wear certain clothing: hence their right to bare arms.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGp0S7qZLw
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    I don't know why but the Betfair Exchange odds seem to be slightly moving in the Tories direction re the Tiverton by-election.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961

    One thing's for sure, it won't be because anyone has any knowledge of what tomorrow's result will actually be.

    It would be interesting to see a chart of the odds in the 48 hours before the North Shropshire result.
    Indeed.

    I will always remember the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, where Labour was at 1.01-1.02 on Betfair as the returning officer got up to speak... And the Libdems had won.
    People often think parties must have a good idea of what is going on even if they cannot admit what they know publicly, if it is bad for them for example.

    This despite countless examples revealing that they can be just as clueless as the rest of us. Sure, they get it right sometimes, but that's a coin toss basically.

    The sports corollary is the 'He must know it over the line/he hit it', no matter that is has been proven people get both wrong all the time.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,862
    HYUFD said:

    Given Major lost 2 by elections in one day in 1991 and won in 1992 I doubt even a double loss on Thursday is fatal for Boris

    I found that an odd inclusion in the piece given OGH's one man war against Boris since 2019! :D
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,138
    CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    It probably should. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the people to overthrow the government if the government descended into tyranny.
    A US government of the late 18th century would only have muskets in its army, so allowing private citizens the same put them on an equal footing.
    Now the US army has nuclear weapons, the only real way for the citizens to effectively fight the US army (should it be needed) is to allow them the same weapons.

    So really, yes, private US citizens should be allowed to buy tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, along with the delivery system.
    They could put them in their back yards.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    It's funny how people love states rights when it works in their favor, and hate it when it doesn't....
    Lobbyists, politicians and jurists starting from their preferred position then working backwards to find the necessary pretext? I don't know, I think we'd have noticed that sort of thing going on in politics and law before now...
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,862

    Thursday's Express: "It's only fair! Rishi defends £1,000 boost to pensions"

    Aha, we locked down to save them and our student loans get jacked up 11%, fuck off you twat

    I thought we locked down to "save" the NHS? ;)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460

    CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    It probably should. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the people to overthrow the government if the government descended into tyranny.
    A US government of the late 18th century would only have muskets in its army, so allowing private citizens the same put them on an equal footing.
    Now the US army has nuclear weapons, the only real way for the citizens to effectively fight the US army (should it be needed) is to allow them the same weapons.

    So really, yes, private US citizens should be allowed to buy tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, along with the delivery system.
    They could put them in their back yards.
    Might look after the nukes about as well as the government?

    Then again I hope the rumours the UKs were guarded by bike locks is not true.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944

    The Tories have got this strike badly wrong I feel.

    Nurses, doctors, Uber drivers, barristers now joining the strike. Public opinion is only going one way IMHO

    Teaching assistants are minimum wage.
    That isn't widely known.
  • GIN1138 said:

    Thursday's Express: "It's only fair! Rishi defends £1,000 boost to pensions"

    Aha, we locked down to save them and our student loans get jacked up 11%, fuck off you twat

    I thought we locked down to "save" the NHS? ;)
    NHS was already broken, it can't be saved whilst the Tories are in Government
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,475
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Major lost 2 by elections in one day in 1991 and won in 1992 I doubt even a double loss on Thursday is fatal for Boris

    I found that an odd inclusion in the piece given OGH's one man war against Boris since 2019! :D
    It's not a one man war.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,326
    dixiedean said:

    CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    Or indeed drink alcohol.
    To be fair, probably best that teenagers with an AR15 aren't too pissed.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,862

    GIN1138 said:

    Thursday's Express: "It's only fair! Rishi defends £1,000 boost to pensions"

    Aha, we locked down to save them and our student loans get jacked up 11%, fuck off you twat

    I thought we locked down to "save" the NHS? ;)
    NHS was already broken, it can't be saved whilst the Tories are in Government
    Well the NHS has successfully treated me for cancer this year. I can't fault the treatment I've had honestly.

    Since it's formation the Tories have been in power for the majority of the NHS's life and it's still going strong from what I can see....
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,862

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Major lost 2 by elections in one day in 1991 and won in 1992 I doubt even a double loss on Thursday is fatal for Boris

    I found that an odd inclusion in the piece given OGH's one man war against Boris since 2019! :D
    It's not a one man war.
    Yeah that's true! :D
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Thursday's Express: "It's only fair! Rishi defends £1,000 boost to pensions"

    Aha, we locked down to save them and our student loans get jacked up 11%, fuck off you twat

    I thought we locked down to "save" the NHS? ;)
    NHS was already broken, it can't be saved whilst the Tories are in Government
    Well the NHS has successfully treated me for cancer this year. I can't fault the treatment I've had honestly.

    Since it's formation the Tories have been in power for the majority of the NHS's life and it's still going strong from what I can see....
    Not sure "strong" is the right word there to be honest.

    It's limping along, with huge differences of performance and outcomes, many postcode related and so on.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Thursday's Express: "It's only fair! Rishi defends £1,000 boost to pensions"

    Aha, we locked down to save them and our student loans get jacked up 11%, fuck off you twat

    I thought we locked down to "save" the NHS? ;)
    NHS was already broken, it can't be saved whilst the Tories are in Government
    Well the NHS has successfully treated me for cancer this year. I can't fault the treatment I've had honestly.

    Since it's formation the Tories have been in power for the majority of the NHS's life and it's still going strong from what I can see....
    Not sure "strong" is the right word there to be honest.

    It's limping along, with huge differences of performance and outcomes, many postcode related and so on.

    Indeed, but its problems are not merely because the Tories are in goverment and Labour are needed to 'save it' from them. If the clarion calls on that were true it wouldn't be limping now, it'd be dead.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 50,652

    The Tories have got this strike badly wrong I feel.

    Nurses, doctors, Uber drivers, barristers now joining the strike. Public opinion is only going one way IMHO

    Starmer needs to get out there and say the words 'Tory inflation' every single day, at every interview and every single media event and every meeting with the public.

    Ram it home. Totally. Make our ears bleed with the repition.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,383
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    Or indeed drink alcohol.
    To be fair, probably best that teenagers with an AR15 aren't too pissed.
    Too pissed is fine, it's when they're a little bit pissed that there's a problem.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,862
    edited June 22

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Thursday's Express: "It's only fair! Rishi defends £1,000 boost to pensions"

    Aha, we locked down to save them and our student loans get jacked up 11%, fuck off you twat

    I thought we locked down to "save" the NHS? ;)
    NHS was already broken, it can't be saved whilst the Tories are in Government
    Well the NHS has successfully treated me for cancer this year. I can't fault the treatment I've had honestly.

    Since it's formation the Tories have been in power for the majority of the NHS's life and it's still going strong from what I can see....
    Not sure "strong" is the right word there to be honest.

    It's limping along, with huge differences of performance and outcomes, many postcode related and so on.

    That's pretty much as it's always been though with performance varying greatly from region to region, area to area, town to town and even within individual hospitals from department to department...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 75,460
    edited June 22
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    CatMan said:

    kle4 said:

    This seems like a really really dumb attempt to argue justification to carry your deadly toy around with you whenever you want.

    A medieval English law dating back nearly seven centuries is now at the heart of the most important US Supreme Court gun case in a decade.

    The case - which stems from a New York legal battle - challenges a state law that requires that gun users who want a concealed carry permit first prove they have a valid reason.

    To help them determine how broad the rights of America's many gun owners go, the country's nine supreme court judges are also looking back to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which dates back to the reign of Edward III...

    In a separate 2008 Supreme Court case that struck down strict Washington DC handgun laws, the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Second Amendment to the US constitution codified "a pre-existing right" from England.

    He added that by the time the United States was founded in 1776, the "right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

    Some historians, however, have disagreed with that assessment, noting that by the late 1200s, English authorities had passed laws restricting the right to carry weapons while traveling in public or in London.

    The later 1328 Statute of Northampton - which predates the first recorded use of a firearm in Europe by several decades - declared that nobody "except the King's servants in his presence" will "go nor ride armed by night nor by day" in fairs, markets "nor in no part elsewhere"...

    In a brief for the Supreme Court, attorney Paul Clement - who represents Mr Nash, Mr Koch and the New York Rifle and Pistol Association - wrote that the statute was only meant to control "unusual weapons" that would frighten the public


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59158248

    I don't understand why if the 2nd Amendment allows 18 year olds to own semi-automatic weapons, why doesn't it also allow them to own fully automatic weapons, or grenades, or rocket launchers, or Napalm, or Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    Or indeed drink alcohol.
    To be fair, probably best that teenagers with an AR15 aren't too pissed.
    Too pissed is fine, it's when they're a little bit pissed that there's a problem.
    The solution is obvious - free, compulsory booze in the schools. Those students should be paralytic by the time they head home (they may need some help getting there).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,944
    kle4 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Thursday's Express: "It's only fair! Rishi defends £1,000 boost to pensions"

    Aha, we locked down to save them and our student loans get jacked up 11%, fuck off you twat

    I thought we locked down to "save" the NHS? ;)
    NHS was already broken, it can't be saved whilst the Tories are in Government
    Well the NHS has successfully treated me for cancer this year. I can't fault the treatment I've had honestly.

    Since it's formation the Tories have been in power for the majority of the NHS's life and it's still going strong from what I can see....
    Not sure "strong" is the right word there to be honest.

    It's limping along, with huge differences of performance and outcomes, many postcode related and so on.

    Indeed, but its problems are not merely because the Tories are in goverment and Labour are needed to 'save it' from them. If the clarion calls on that were true it wouldn't be limping now, it'd be dead.
    IF the rumours of Mandelson/Campbell are true then we won't be wanting for any repetition of a slogan or narrative.
    Anywhere. Ever
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030

    The Tories have got this strike badly wrong I feel.

    Nurses, doctors, Uber drivers, barristers now joining the strike. Public opinion is only going one way IMHO

    Yes, they could have slightly reduced the increase in pensions instead of pressing ahead with it regardless.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    HYUFD said:

    Given Major lost 2 by elections in one day in 1991 and won in 1992 I doubt even a double loss on Thursday is fatal for Boris

    I think the Tories will lose both but not by enormous majorities. Maybe 3-5,000 in each case.
Sign In or Register to comment.