Completely off-topic, but what's with the butterflies in the first pic? Filter on the photo (they look added to the pic, to me) or some kind of actual jewellery?
I've absolutely no problem with either, just intrigued at the why if a filter (what could possibly improve a pic of you with your newborn?) and the why and the practicalities if actually real - I've never seen such a thing.
Filter and its a selfie (the photographer given credit is herself). Some people, especially young women, almost always seem to use filters nowadays.
It's a bit of a thing with young ones. They probably grow out of it. Thankfully the pic of the baby is just a baby - and she's lovely.
June 28, 2022 Primaries & Runoffs - New York State (* incumbent)
Governor (Democratic) - Kathy Hochul* 68% v Jumaane Williams 19% v Thomas Suozzi 13% > Hochul carried every county; Richmond (Brooklyn) by just 52% but by whopping margins upstate
Governor (Republican) - Lee Zeldin 44% v Andrew Giuliani 23% v Rob Astorino 19% v Harry Wilson 15% > Giuliani the Younger (and Slightly Saner) was frontrunner in NYC, Astorino lower Hudson Valley, Wilson parts of upstate, Zeldin everywhere else > Zeldin victory party last night featured an old PB favorite, former congressman & IRA facilitator Peter King: Peter King, who proclaimed it a “great day for New York.”
Lieutenant Governor (Dem) - Antonio Delgado* 61% v Ana Maria Archila 25% v Diana Reyna 14% > former congressman Delgado is Hochul's SECOND appointee as LG, here first pick being forced to resign
(Lieutenant Governor (Rep) was uncontested)
Good night for Hochul who has managed (after initial pratfalls following her own elevation from Lt Gov to Governor upon resignation of serial a-hole Andrew Cuomo). AND clearly has her up-state mojo working (she's from Buffalo) which as Hillary Clinton demonstrated in 2000 (with huge assist from then-US Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan) is THE path for successful Empire State statewide Democratic candidates in the 3rd Millennium.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
"A new electoral system would save Britain from socialist decline Proportional representation could well re-energise British politics and bring to power a common sense coalition Nigel Farage"
Not sure 'comes out in favour of' is quite accurate. It thought he had been along time advocate? He certainly railed about it enough when UKIP were getting 12% of the vote and one seat.
The man who wishes to be tampon has changed his outlook after being caught.
The Prince of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims he received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag.
I saw that this morning, through my binos. Disturbing
Weird. When encountered smile sweetly, don't stare, feel life affirmed and carry on. If there is anything more charming in this world I don't know what it is.
Fantastic, another step towards Jolyon being formally labelled a vexatious litigant by a High Court Judge. Who the hell is still giving him money?
You keep on banging about him becoming a vexatious litigant but it isn't going to happen, he keeps on getting cases won at SCOTUK, including some important ones, like the prorogation of Parliament one.
He won one case, years ago, and since then has given every impression of being on a vendetta against the government.
Were Britain to adopt PR, a Brexity-ultra party would likely become a permanent fixture of the political scene.
And likely the Conservatives would need them to form a government maybe 50% of the time.
The overall impact of PR though would likely be a moderate shift leftwards, with the arrival of the Greens into the House.
The approx long run average breakdown would likely be something like:
38 Con 35 Lab 7 LD 10 Green 5 Brexit 5 Nationalist
I think the LDs are too low. They might actually go higher with PR because there are a lot of marginals where natural LD voters tend to vote for one of the two main parties.
The best outcome from the UKG’s perspective is for the referendum to go ahead but be boycotted by unionist voters.
We have a candidate for Useful Idiot of the Month.
You say that about everybody and everything, though, Stuart.
You’re like MalcolmG, just passive aggressive and weirdly pooterish.
Be gentle with Stuart, he’s grieving, he fled the UK and now in Sweden he’ll soon find himself up the protective aegis of the UK thanks to Sweden planning to join NATO.
I saw that this morning, through my binos. Disturbing
Weird. When encountered smile sweetly, don't stare, feel life affirmed and carry on. If there is anything more charming in this world I don't know what it is.
I had to scan the whole car park for hours til I found her. Disgusting. Tits all over the shop. Nipples actually showing. When I carefully adjusted the focus I could see the other breast as well
Were Britain to adopt PR, a Brexity-ultra party would likely become a permanent fixture of the political scene.
And likely the Conservatives would need them to form a government maybe 50% of the time.
The overall impact of PR though would likely be a moderate shift leftwards, with the arrival of the Greens into the House.
The approx long run average breakdown would likely be something like:
38 Con 35 Lab 7 LD 10 Green 5 Brexit 5 Nationalist
I think the LDs are too low. They might actually go higher with PR because there are a lot of marginals where natural LD voters tend to vote for one of the two main parties.
Nah. Half the LD vote is essentially a protest vote. Sadly (for me) only a small percentage of the population are consistently “liberal”.
See FDP in Germany and Act in NZ for more details, although both are “right-liberal” whereas the LDs are more “left-liberal”.
The best outcome from the UKG’s perspective is for the referendum to go ahead but be boycotted by unionist voters.
We have a candidate for Useful Idiot of the Month.
You say that about everybody and everything, though, Stuart.
You’re like MalcolmG, just passive aggressive and weirdly pooterish.
Nonsense.
I say a lot of nice things about opponents. Ian Murray MP got a few pleasant adjectives just upthread. Lots of decent folk around. You are not one of them.
Fantastic, another step towards Jolyon being formally labelled a vexatious litigant by a High Court Judge. Who the hell is still giving him money?
You keep on banging about him becoming a vexatious litigant but it isn't going to happen, he keeps on getting cases won at SCOTUK, including some important ones, like the prorogation of Parliament one.
The thing that is vexatious is that he keeps winning.
The best outcome from the UKG’s perspective is for the referendum to go ahead but be boycotted by unionist voters.
We have a candidate for Useful Idiot of the Month.
You say that about everybody and everything, though, Stuart.
You’re like MalcolmG, just passive aggressive and weirdly pooterish.
Nonsense.
I say a lot of nice things about opponents. Ian Murray MP got a few pleasant adjectives just upthread. Lots of decent folk around. You are not one of them.
You really don’t. You spend all your time boring the rest of us with how terrible unionism is and how wonderful the Swedish mungbean party is.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
Are you sure you are planning a coup and not just some light terrorism with attempt to change government?
The man who wishes to be tampon has changed his outlook after being caught.
The Prince of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims he received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag.
To be fair to him, he may be so out of touch he thinks the little people actually do transact business in cash, and send an equerry round with a plastic bag of notes to buy houses and cars and stuff.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is showing how "written constitutions" and "protection of courts" is not what people make it out to be.
The problem of trying to subvert democracy by courts is that whoever controls the courts, can subvert democracy.
No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate Commons privileges committee will start taking oral evidence in autumn into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs
The man who wishes to be tampon has changed his outlook after being caught.
The Prince of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims he received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag.
To be fair to him, he may be so out of touch he thinks the little people actually do transact business in cash, and send an equerry round with a plastic bag of notes to buy houses and cars and stuff.
The Qataris are still laughing, that this is a story.
Bags of cash are their fun, Arabs are very “new money”, and people in the sandpit buy houses and cars with cash all the time.
They’re also well aware that they could have done a bank transfer, as is normal in the West - but quite like the idea of the future King trying to deal with the pile of cash, in a place where different customs apply.
No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate Commons privileges committee will start taking oral evidence in autumn into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs
Fantastic, another step towards Jolyon being formally labelled a vexatious litigant by a High Court Judge. Who the hell is still giving him money?
You keep on banging about him becoming a vexatious litigant but it isn't going to happen, he keeps on getting cases won at SCOTUK, including some important ones, like the prorogation of Parliament one.
The thing that is vexatious is that he keeps winning.
How many times has he won, not including the bullshit travesty of a ruling on prorogation?
No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate Commons privileges committee will start taking oral evidence in autumn into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
Are you sure you are planning a coup and not just some light terrorism with attempt to change government?
Very good linking of two discussions. You have to be on the ball on PB don't you. There was a good chance I wouldn't have had a clue what you were referring to.
Just to clarify I am attempting a proper coup, but if I fail it will just be myself and a few lads having a bit of fun.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is showing how "written constitutions" and "protection of courts" is not what people make it out to be.
The problem of trying to subvert democracy by courts is that whoever controls the courts, can subvert democracy.
Only for so long though. The legislatures that are imposing these bans will have to face their voters.
No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate Commons privileges committee will start taking oral evidence in autumn into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs
No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate Commons privileges committee will start taking oral evidence in autumn into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs
Fantastic, another step towards Jolyon being formally labelled a vexatious litigant by a High Court Judge. Who the hell is still giving him money?
You keep on banging about him becoming a vexatious litigant but it isn't going to happen, he keeps on getting cases won at SCOTUK, including some important ones, like the prorogation of Parliament one.
The thing that is vexatious is that he keeps winning.
How many times has he won, not including the bullshit travesty of a ruling on prorogation?
"How many times has he won, excluding all the times I think he shouldn't have?"
No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate Commons privileges committee will start taking oral evidence in autumn into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs
Will Carrie be taking the oral evidence?
I imagine some of it will be hard to swallow.
I wonder if he ruffles his hair beforehand....
I think that's what he does during the act. That's why his hair is always a mess.
That is not a 9% swing, its a 4.5% swing. Less in fact as that poll has LDs on 9, so its a 3.5% swing You are just wrong. No poll shows Hunt losing his seat. He could lose his seat, sure, anyone could, but no polling shows that.
No it is a 9% swing as where the LDs are the Tories main opponents as in SW Surrey anti Tory tactical votes would go LD not Labour
That is an entirely different argument based on assumptions you cannot apply to national polling figures. Have you got a detailed breakdown of tactical voting intentions you can provide?
If the swing to the LDs in Hunt's seat is anything like Tiverton and Honiton or Chesham and Amersham or North Shropshire then Hunt is toast as much as Raab, boundary changes or not
Yes, if it is. The current polling doesnt show that. Doesnt mean it won't happen. But the polling does not show it. And that was the point you made. If you just think Hunt will lose his seat, fair enough, thats an opinion, but you can't cite polling in support when the polling does not currently support it.
It effectively does given the scale of tactical voting by Labour voters for the LDs in recent local elections and local by elections where the LDs were the Tories main opponents.
As I also said in 1997 in Tory LD marginals the Tory to LD swing was about the same as the Tory to Labour swing in Tory Labour marginals despite a slightly lower LD national voteshare than 1992
1993 Christchurch by-election 35.4 Conservative Liberal Democrats 2021 North Shropshire by-election 34.2 Conservative Liberal Democrats 2022 Tiverton and Honiton by-election 29.9 Conservative Liberal Democrats 1994 Dudley West by-election 29.2 Conservative Labour 1993 Newbury by-election 28.4 Conservative Liberal Democrats 2021 Chesham and Amersham by-election 25.1 Conservative Liberal Democrats 1994 Dagenham by-election 23.1 Conservative Labour 1996 South East Staffordshire by-election 22.1 Conservative Labour 1994 Barking by-election 22.0 Conservative Labour
Bluntly speaking, the Lib Dems are achieving the 1992 - 1997 swings at by-elections, whereas Labour just aren't.
Where does the next GE end up if Labour have similar progress against the Conservatives that they achieved in 2015 - No I'm not making that up, Ed Miliband did move forward against the Tories. & Ed Davey has a 1997 (much larger) type swing where the Lib Dems are facing the Tories.
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Depends which house it is for or what type of elections.
Thanks for engaging. Stupid for a couple of reasons.
1. Voters don’t care enough about it, and no thanks or support will be delivered unto the LDs for making it happen.
2. We need to move on from the “long Blair” era when significant constitutional changes can be made just because a party has a majority in the Commons. A proper referendum is required.
I think a possible exception to (2) might be voting in local government, where I think the LDs should *start* in order to give voters greater familiarity with PR in practice. But this is still not going to impress any voters. The LD need a clear and positive “win” that voters approve of.
Fantastic, another step towards Jolyon being formally labelled a vexatious litigant by a High Court Judge. Who the hell is still giving him money?
You keep on banging about him becoming a vexatious litigant but it isn't going to happen, he keeps on getting cases won at SCOTUK, including some important ones, like the prorogation of Parliament one.
The thing that is vexatious is that he keeps winning.
How many times has he won, not including the bullshit travesty of a ruling on prorogation?
You sound like a Cybernat moaning like whores about a ruling the English (sIc) Supreme Court has yet to make.
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Blimey, they could not think of a better way to put potential swing voters off tactically voting for LibDems in Tory 1st/LD 2nd seats than wanting to change FPTP without a referendum imho.
Tories will have a field day with this in GE campaign me thinks.
NEW on US policy on Turkish F16s: On the record from Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Celeste Wallander: "The US fully supports Turkey’s modernization plans for Turkey’s F-16 fleet... https://twitter.com/nickschifrin/status/1542093892346077184
That’s a big “Thank-You” for not vetoing Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Depends which house it is for or what type of elections.
Thanks for engaging. Stupid for a couple of reasons.
1. Voters don’t care enough about it, and no thanks or support will be delivered unto the LDs for making it happen.
2. We need to move on from the “long Blair” era when significant constitutional changes can be made just because a party has a majority in the Commons. A proper referendum is required.
I think a possible exception to (2) might be voting in local government, where I think the LDs should *start* in order to give voters greater familiarity with PR in practice. But this is still not going to impress any voters. The LD need a clear and positive “win” that voters approve of.
Lords reform could be a winner. Voting lebedev and mone out of jobs would be almost as satisfying as voting Johnson out
Good news - I've been offered complimentary corporate tickets for the Grand Prix this weekend by a McLaren sponsor.
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
Take the crypto-sponsors money hospitality, but then give them nothing back in return and don't further their agenda afterwards. Hospitality isn't meant to have a quid pro quo anyway, and if you take it and don't give them one, then it means they're not using their ill-gotten funds to get one from someone else.
The man who wishes to be tampon has changed his outlook after being caught.
The Prince of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims he received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag.
Am still amazed that running around with steamer trunks stuffed with cash from God-knows-where-or-whom is NOT primae facie evidence of money laundering in UK? Or at least grounds for serious investigation into whys & wherefores?
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Depends which house it is for or what type of elections.
Thanks for engaging. Stupid for a couple of reasons.
1. Voters don’t care enough about it, and no thanks or support will be delivered unto the LDs for making it happen.
2. We need to move on from the “long Blair” era when significant constitutional changes can be made just because a party has a majority in the Commons. A proper referendum is required.
I think a possible exception to (2) might be voting in local government, where I think the LDs should *start* in order to give voters greater familiarity with PR in practice. But this is still not going to impress any voters. The LD need a clear and positive “win” that voters approve of.
Lords reform could be a winner. Voting lebedev and mone out of jobs would be almost as satisfying as voting Johnson out
Lords reform and PR in local elections would be a very good start.
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Depends which house it is for or what type of elections.
Thanks for engaging. Stupid for a couple of reasons.
1. Voters don’t care enough about it, and no thanks or support will be delivered unto the LDs for making it happen.
2. We need to move on from the “long Blair” era when significant constitutional changes can be made just because a party has a majority in the Commons. A proper referendum is required.
I think a possible exception to (2) might be voting in local government, where I think the LDs should *start* in order to give voters greater familiarity with PR in practice. But this is still not going to impress any voters. The LD need a clear and positive “win” that voters approve of.
Lords reform could be a winner. Voting lebedev and mone out of jobs would be almost as satisfying as voting Johnson out
Lords reform and PR in local elections would be a very good start.
It's encouraging that Burnham, despite being a Labour tribalist, seems finally to be working out some of this stuff for himself.
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Depends which house it is for or what type of elections.
Thanks for engaging. Stupid for a couple of reasons.
1. Voters don’t care enough about it, and no thanks or support will be delivered unto the LDs for making it happen.
2. We need to move on from the “long Blair” era when significant constitutional changes can be made just because a party has a majority in the Commons. A proper referendum is required.
I think a possible exception to (2) might be voting in local government, where I think the LDs should *start* in order to give voters greater familiarity with PR in practice. But this is still not going to impress any voters. The LD need a clear and positive “win” that voters approve of.
Lords reform could be a winner. Voting lebedev and mone out of jobs would be almost as satisfying as voting Johnson out
I don’t think it wise to rush into these things.
Personally I am against an elected Upper House as it would completely unbalance the existing settlement, although I do wish to see the end of the hereditaries and the end of party leader patronage.
In any case, I still don’t think the average voter gives a toss, and I struggle to think why the LDs would “start here”.
Re PMQs — hard to see Raab "knocked it out of the park". Some may have been misled by the noise of Tory barracking. It is interesting that this Conservative tactic is back, after Boris dropped it for a couple of years.
As always, typing PMQs into Youtube's search box finds several replays.
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Depends which house it is for or what type of elections.
Thanks for engaging. Stupid for a couple of reasons.
1. Voters don’t care enough about it, and no thanks or support will be delivered unto the LDs for making it happen.
2. We need to move on from the “long Blair” era when significant constitutional changes can be made just because a party has a majority in the Commons. A proper referendum is required.
I think a possible exception to (2) might be voting in local government, where I think the LDs should *start* in order to give voters greater familiarity with PR in practice. But this is still not going to impress any voters. The LD need a clear and positive “win” that voters approve of.
Absolutely agree on PR for local government. This should be Libs priority. Combined with major devolution of more power from Westminster to local councils.
The man who wishes to be tampon has changed his outlook after being caught.
The Prince of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims he received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag.
Am still amazed that running around with steamer trunks stuffed with cash from God-knows-where-or-whom is NOT primae facie evidence of money laundering in UK? Or at least grounds for serious investigation into whys & wherefores?
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Blimey, they could not think of a better way to put potential swing voters off tactically voting for LibDems in Tory 1st/LD 2nd seats than wanting to change FPTP without a referendum imho.
Tories will have a field day with this in GE campaign me thinks.
Yep, that’s another reason. It’s likely a swing voter turnoff in the Blue Wall.
Fantastic, another step towards Jolyon being formally labelled a vexatious litigant by a High Court Judge. Who the hell is still giving him money?
You keep on banging about him becoming a vexatious litigant but it isn't going to happen, he keeps on getting cases won at SCOTUK, including some important ones, like the prorogation of Parliament one.
The thing that is vexatious is that he keeps winning.
How many times has he won, not including the bullshit travesty of a ruling on prorogation?
You sound like a Cybernat moaning like whores about a ruling the English (sIc) Supreme Court has yet to make.
”The idea that the GLP might, for all its pretensions, be a grubby political operation will probably not come as a surprise to many readers. And if it is misrepresenting its track record, that does raise interesting questions about the law governing crowd-funding.
“But the ruling also poses a more direct danger to their entire model. In parts 55-59, the court takes a cold, hard look at the question of whether or not the GLP actually has the ‘standing’ that would allow it to even bring a suit – and concludes that “the Runnymede Trust has standing to bring the public sector equality duty challenge, but the Good Law Project does not.” (Par 59.)
“In the course of so doing, the judges explicitly attack the idea that any individual or private company, “even with a sincere interest in public law issues, would be regarded as having standing in all cases” (par 57), and state that “it cannot be supposed that the GLP now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.” (Par 58).
“Yet that is, at root, precisely its modus operandi. If Maugham and co can’t keep finding legitimate litigants to piggyback on, their ability to keep generating even defeats to spin might be in serious doubt.
That’s damn close to declaring Jolyon to be a vexatious litigant.
Re PMQs — hard to see Raab "knocked it out of the park". Some may have been misled by the noise of Tory barracking. It is interesting that this Conservative tactic is back, after Boris dropped it for a couple of years.
I've just seen Raab's opera comments, what a cockwomble, especially as the target is a working class Northerner.
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Depends which house it is for or what type of elections.
Thanks for engaging. Stupid for a couple of reasons.
1. Voters don’t care enough about it, and no thanks or support will be delivered unto the LDs for making it happen.
2. We need to move on from the “long Blair” era when significant constitutional changes can be made just because a party has a majority in the Commons. A proper referendum is required.
I think a possible exception to (2) might be voting in local government, where I think the LDs should *start* in order to give voters greater familiarity with PR in practice. But this is still not going to impress any voters. The LD need a clear and positive “win” that voters approve of.
Absolutely agree on PR for local government. This should be Libs priority. Combined with major devolution of more power from Westminster to local councils.
Absolutely. But the LDs need something eye-catching. Like the abolition of interest on student debt, or some popular green measure (what?). Or all of the above.
Re PMQs — hard to see Raab "knocked it out of the park". Some may have been misled by the noise of Tory barracking. It is interesting that this Conservative tactic is back, after Boris dropped it for a couple of years.
I've just seen Raab's opera comments, what a cockwomble, especially as the target is a working class Northerner.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
I mean, to send same sex marriage back to the states involves blowing up the Full Faith and Credit provision.
The Lib Dem price to support Labour is said to be “electoral reform without referendum” according to Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman.
That would be very stupid, if true.
I favour changing from FPTP but this I think is daft. I cannot see a large chunk of labour MPs supporting it and a major constitutional change without a referendum just sits wrong. Also implies they think they wouldn’t win.
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
What about the ones already there? What about the ones who have no choice (who move, say, to look after an ailing parent?).
No surprise as it would mean the LDs would almost always be in government and the Tories and Labour would almost never get a majority.
No surprise either Farage backs PR as UKIP would have been Kingmakers in 2015 with PR and even on current polls ReformUK would win about 15 to 20 MPs with PR
Re: allegation that Boris & Carrie were interrupted during some extremely-close consultation in his office, years ago a former boss told me this story:
He was an aide to a congressman, and accompanied HIS boss to a scheduled appointment with a top committee chair, in the latter's office. When they arrived, the receptionist told them the committee chair was in another meeting, and asked them to wait in a small waiting area.
After about ten minutes, the visiting Representative got antsy (he was like that) got up and said (I paraphrase) where the hell is this guy anyway? Then proceeded to open a door that appeared to lead deeper into the Chairman's office suite.
When the visitor and aide entered the next room, they found the Chairman fucking a woman on top of his desk.
Thinking quickly, they both backed out of the room and closed the door. And about 5 minutes later, the receptionist came in and announced, the Chairman is ready to see you now.
Naturally, nobody said a word about what had just transpired. No doubt same with "alleged" Boris & Carrie "conference"
So, suppose the SNP do plan on using the 2024 GE as a plebiscite for indy, if Boris and the Supreme Court say no... We get the following result: Labour - 283 Con - 275 SNP - 48 Lib Dems - 20 What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Starmer forms a minority government with the LDs on those numbers and also ignores the SNP beyond a Brown commission on devomax
Report tonight Boris may allow indyref2 and to be honest it would be the right thing to do
No there isn't, anywhere. If he did then he would lose a VONC and be removed straight away
All the government said was "Our position remains unchanged that both ours and the Scottish Government's priority should be working together with a relentless focus on the issues that we know matter to people up and down the country.
"That remains our priority, but a decision has been taken by the First Minister, so we will carefully study the details of the proposal, and the Supreme Court will now consider whether to accept the Scottish Government's Lord Advocate referral".
I have just published that and you repeat it for some strange reason
Why are you so scared of a vote that is winnable
It is 50/50 at the moment and even if it was won the SNP would demand another referendum the UK government having been so weak as to allow an indyref2 before a generation had elapsed.
No, this Tory government must go full hardcore Madrid Catalonia 2017 if needed, no official indyref2 allowed under any circumstance whatsoever and Unionists to boycott any wildcat referendum
I am not convinced at your second paragraph. Telling the Scottish people (well any people for that matter) that they can't have something is most likely to make them want to double down against the denyers. People who don't want to vote indy could well end up doing so out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
On the other hand Johnson needs to be careful as the vote, whilst he remains PM, will be on a knife- edge. He could become the PM who both did Brexit, and did for the Union.
They can't if they have no vote. Madrid has successfully refused an official independence referendum for 5 years in Catalonia, indeed in 2017 it not only refused to recognise the Catalan independence referendum, it imposed temporary direct rule and the arrest was ordered of nationalist leaders for sedition, forcing many into exile.
Nothing must be off the table in order to take on the SNP
But it doesn't really work like that.
P*ss people off, particularly Scottish people, and they will punish you. Scottish Labour is your salutory lesson here.
As for your tanks on the Royal Mile, forget it, that will never happen.
No they won't. 71% of Scots don't want an indyref2 in 2023.
The UK government can and must stand up to Sturgeon, Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union and that is from the very legislation that set up Holyrood.
Scottish Labour was weak, the SNP must be dealt with with a rod of iron
Definition of rule with a rod of iron : to rule a country, area, group, etc., in a very strict and often cruel way The dictator ruled (the country) with a rod of iron.
(Miriam Webster)
You FUDHY are a very odd little man. Do you have a neat little moustache, intimacy issues and a desire for Lebensraum?
No, if we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood and impose direct rule from Westminster having evicted Scottish MPs.
Ruling out indyref2 is a mild response
You accept that NI should have a border poll if a majority wants it. Why not Scotland?
As the GFA does not apply to Scotland, the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the future of the Union to Westminster
Louisville is not a part of the United Kingdom.
So what.
If you accept that NI has the right under certain conditions to vote for "independence" then you must support Scotland's right also.
No I don't as Scotland does not have the history of terrorism NI does plus it has already had one once a generation independence referendum
So, you respect the rights of terrorists and denounce the rights of democrats. One wonders what kind of country England would become if people like FUDHY were allowed to drive their philosophy to its logical conclusion.
Glad you picked up on that as I was about to post the same regarding terrorism. And no, the HYUFD world bears no relation to reality in England or anywhere else in the civilised world. Thankfully. A country where terrorists are rewarded and peaceful campaigners for independence are threatened with tanks is not one I am interested in inhabiting.
Oh really? Yet in Northern Ireland the GFA only came about after a 30 year terrorist bombing campaign by the IRA in GB and loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA in NI
In Scotland however there is no GFA and what Westminster says goes, as it has since the 1707 Act of Union and on the Union under the Scotland Act 1998 that created Holyrood
You appear to want to appease terrorists and ignore democrats. If I were to successfully carry out a coup, making myself supreme leader would that be ok with you?
The Good Friday Agreement effectively did appease terrorists and even put them in government to achieve peace after decades of conflict.
The issue was of course that they were terrorists on both sides! Are you suggesting there will be Unionist terrorists as well as Nationalist ones in Scotland? (Or should that be vice versa?) Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because you thought they'd like clean cut Mormons.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because you thought they'd like clean cut Mormons.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Because they should be able to live wherever they fucking like without some God bothering fanatics declaring them second class citizens.
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
Well, hyufd, gay people are much more like other people than you would think. So your question is no different from, why would anyone move to Utah or the deep South? They aren't solely motivated by the cruising opportunities especially if ex hypothesi they are a couple
No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate Commons privileges committee will start taking oral evidence in autumn into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs
SOUTH CAROLINA Democratic runoff for US Senate > Krystal Matthews 56% giving her right to run against incumbent GOPer & fellow Black US Sen Tim Scott, who is 99.46% favorite for re-election in this Fall.
MISSISSIPPI Republican runoffs for US House > in MS CD3 incumbent Michael Guest 66% despite supporting 1/6 committee investigation, versus a full-blown Putinist > in MS CD4, ethically challenged incumbent Steve Palazzo loses with 46% v law enforcement officer Mike Ezell 54%
The man who wishes to be tampon has changed his outlook after being caught.
The Prince of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims he received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag.
Am still amazed that running around with steamer trunks stuffed with cash from God-knows-where-or-whom is NOT primae facie evidence of money laundering in UK? Or at least grounds for serious investigation into whys & wherefores?
This Supreme Court is running wild. This outcome is a kick in the face to peoples whose land we already took and whose sovereignty we have already disregarded- to the point of genocide.
Another determination that could be left to individual states is, apparently, same sex marriage.
The way this is going, the way some states seem to be a million miles away from others in social outlook, you have to wonder whether in the end some sort of fracturing/secession might actually occur.
Leaving same sex marriage to individual states is much more complex, because say you a gay Connecticut couple (as apparently most of them are), and you move to Utah, where gay marriage is illegal, then is your marriage recognized?
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
As I said earlier this week why on earth would a gay couple move to Utah or say the deep South, which is where the states most likely to have majorities against gay marriage will be?
You have absolutely no capacity for imagination do you?
Comments
Governor (Democratic) - Kathy Hochul* 68% v Jumaane Williams 19% v Thomas Suozzi 13%
> Hochul carried every county; Richmond (Brooklyn) by just 52% but by whopping margins upstate
Governor (Republican) - Lee Zeldin 44% v Andrew Giuliani 23% v Rob Astorino 19% v Harry Wilson 15%
> Giuliani the Younger (and Slightly Saner) was frontrunner in NYC, Astorino lower Hudson Valley, Wilson parts of upstate, Zeldin everywhere else
> Zeldin victory party last night featured an old PB favorite, former congressman & IRA facilitator Peter King: Peter King, who proclaimed it a “great day for New York.”
Lieutenant Governor (Dem) - Antonio Delgado* 61% v Ana Maria Archila 25% v Diana Reyna 14%
> former congressman Delgado is Hochul's SECOND appointee as LG, here first pick being forced to resign
(Lieutenant Governor (Rep) was uncontested)
Good night for Hochul who has managed (after initial pratfalls following her own elevation from Lt Gov to Governor upon resignation of serial a-hole Andrew Cuomo). AND clearly has her up-state mojo working (she's from Buffalo) which as Hillary Clinton demonstrated in 2000 (with huge assist from then-US Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan) is THE path for successful Empire State statewide Democratic candidates in the 3rd Millennium.
We don’t need any reminders of who’s goblin whose cock.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/angela-rayner-accuses-dominic-raab-of-snobbery-after-opera-jibe_uk_62bc5c86e4b080fb670d15a8
"The Marriage of Figaro is the story of a working-class woman who gets the better of a privileged but dim-witted villain."
Always said it was a subversive opera.
Raducanu time.
And likely the Conservatives would need them to form a government maybe 50% of the time.
The overall impact of PR though would likely be a moderate shift leftwards, with the arrival of the Greens into the House.
The approx long run average breakdown would likely be something like:
38 Con
35 Lab
7 LD
10 Green
5 Brexit
5 Nationalist
The Prince of Wales will no longer accept large cash donations for his charities, a senior royal source has said, after Charles faced criticism over claims he received €3m from a billionaire Qatari sheikh reportedly stuffed in a small suitcase and Fortnum & Mason carrier bag.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/29/prince-charles-will-no-longer-accept-large-cash-donations-for-charities?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
You’re like MalcolmG, just passive aggressive and weirdly pooterish.
https://www.cityam.com/barrister-jolyon-maugham-qc-apologises-for-falsely-claiming-court-victory-against-matt-hancock/
Even his own “Friends” are close to giving up on him:
https://labourpainsblog.com/2022/02/23/good-law-project-failing-at-a-not-so-technical-level/
So are neutral legal bloggers:
https://barristerblogger.com/2018/06/02/rape-juries-jolyon-maugham-hits-the-wrong-target/
And obviously his opponents
https://conservativehome.com/2022/02/17/the-good-law-projects-latest-suit-fails-in-its-entirety-should-they-not-be-obliged-to-say-so/
Do we still need to get on to the “fox, baseball bat and kimono” story? That made the American media.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-british-barrister-was-known-for-battling-brexit-then-he-beat-a-fox-to-death-while-wearing-a-kimono/2019/12/30/64c50612-2aed-11ea-bffe-020c88b3f120_story.html
Isn’t the legal system gummed up enough at the moment, without giving w@nkers like him valuable court time?
No 5/6 (PP)
Yes 10/11 (Hills)
Half the LD vote is essentially a protest vote.
Sadly (for me) only a small percentage of the population are consistently “liberal”.
See FDP in Germany and Act in NZ for more details, although both are “right-liberal” whereas the LDs are more “left-liberal”.
I say a lot of nice things about opponents. Ian Murray MP got a few pleasant adjectives just upthread. Lots of decent folk around. You are not one of them.
Smash that 5/6 all day - but be aware of the time value of money, two years away from something that might not happen, and with inflation at 9%.
You spend all your time boring the rest of us with how terrible unionism is and how wonderful the Swedish mungbean party is.
Tack!
The problem of trying to subvert democracy by courts is that whoever controls the courts, can subvert democracy.
Bags of cash are their fun, Arabs are very “new money”, and people in the sandpit buy houses and cars with cash all the time.
They’re also well aware that they could have done a bank transfer, as is normal in the West - but quite like the idea of the future King trying to deal with the pile of cash, in a place where different customs apply.
That would be very stupid, if true.
Just to clarify I am attempting a proper coup, but if I fail it will just be myself and a few lads having a bit of fun.
Some campaigners in the UK seem to think it is a cure-all, it certainly is not.
Also their citizens have free movement.
Stupid for a couple of reasons.
1. Voters don’t care enough about it, and no thanks or support will be delivered unto the LDs for making it happen.
2. We need to move on from the “long Blair” era when significant constitutional changes can be made just because a party has a majority in the Commons. A proper referendum is required.
I think a possible exception to (2) might be voting in local government, where I think the LDs should *start* in order to give voters greater familiarity with PR in practice. But this is still not going to impress any voters. The LD need a clear and positive “win” that voters approve of.
Tories will have a field day with this in GE campaign me thinks.
It also means that the Tories will no longer get 80+ seat majorities on 43% of the vote.
What about your gay marriage as regards federal treatment of benefits to spouses?
Or is that simply logical inference?
Bad news - It is from one their crypto sponsors.
I'm on the horns of an ethical dilemma.
Edit - I've remembered how 'easy' it is to get in and out of Silverstone on race weekend, dilemma over.
Great scoop in @Kevin_Maguire's Commons Confidential. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/commons-confidential/2022/06/tories-panic-liberal-democrats-labour-coalition
Dilemma resolved.
Personally I am against an elected Upper House as it would completely unbalance the existing settlement, although I do wish to see the end of the hereditaries and the end of party leader patronage.
In any case, I still don’t think the average voter gives a toss, and I struggle to think why the LDs would “start here”.
As always, typing PMQs into Youtube's search box finds several replays.
It’s likely a swing voter turnoff in the Blue Wall.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Queen-on-the-application-of-1-Good-Law-Project-2-Runnymede-Trust-v-1-Prime-Minister-SSHSC-judgment.pdf
https://conservativehome.com/2022/02/17/the-good-law-projects-latest-suit-fails-in-its-entirety-should-they-not-be-obliged-to-say-so/
”The idea that the GLP might, for all its pretensions, be a grubby political operation will probably not come as a surprise to many readers. And if it is misrepresenting its track record, that does raise interesting questions about the law governing crowd-funding.
“But the ruling also poses a more direct danger to their entire model. In parts 55-59, the court takes a cold, hard look at the question of whether or not the GLP actually has the ‘standing’ that would allow it to even bring a suit – and concludes that “the Runnymede Trust has standing to bring the public sector equality duty challenge, but the Good Law Project does not.” (Par 59.)
“In the course of so doing, the judges explicitly attack the idea that any individual or private company, “even with a sincere interest in public law issues, would be regarded as
having standing in all cases” (par 57), and state that “it cannot be supposed that the GLP now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.” (Par 58).
“Yet that is, at root, precisely its modus operandi. If Maugham and co can’t keep finding legitimate litigants to piggyback on, their ability to keep generating even defeats to spin might be in serious doubt.
That’s damn close to declaring Jolyon to be a vexatious litigant.
But the LDs need something eye-catching.
Like the abolition of interest on student debt, or some popular green measure (what?).
Or all of the above.
So...... I can totally see this court doing that.
What about the ones who have no choice (who move, say, to look after an ailing parent?).
No surprise either Farage backs PR as UKIP would have been Kingmakers in 2015 with PR and even on current polls ReformUK would win about 15 to 20 MPs with PR
He was an aide to a congressman, and accompanied HIS boss to a scheduled appointment with a top committee chair, in the latter's office. When they arrived, the receptionist told them the committee chair was in another meeting, and asked them to wait in a small waiting area.
After about ten minutes, the visiting Representative got antsy (he was like that) got up and said (I paraphrase) where the hell is this guy anyway? Then proceeded to open a door that appeared to lead deeper into the Chairman's office suite.
When the visitor and aide entered the next room, they found the Chairman fucking a woman on top of his desk.
Thinking quickly, they both backed out of the room and closed the door. And about 5 minutes later, the receptionist came in and announced, the Chairman is ready to see you now.
Naturally, nobody said a word about what had just transpired. No doubt same with "alleged" Boris & Carrie "conference"
(There used to be more aircraft movements at Silverstone than Heathrow, on the Sunday).
Or that civil unrest is essential before independence is granted?
SOUTH CAROLINA Democratic runoff for US Senate
> Krystal Matthews 56% giving her right to run against incumbent GOPer & fellow Black US Sen Tim Scott, who is 99.46% favorite for re-election in this Fall.
MISSISSIPPI Republican runoffs for US House
> in MS CD3 incumbent Michael Guest 66% despite supporting 1/6 committee investigation, versus a full-blown Putinist
> in MS CD4, ethically challenged incumbent Steve Palazzo loses with 46% v law enforcement officer Mike Ezell 54%