Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
That isn't quite what HYUFD said. Autumn 2022 and spring 2023 are an epoch away in politics.
I don't know what I would predict. But the principle (betting wise) I would adopt is that there are only 2 considerations to take into account until the facts change. One is the statutory last date of the next GE (January 2025), and the other is that as long as Boris is PM the only factor to consider about an election before Jan 2025 is the preservation of Boris as PM.
In particular, if calling one early, even though high risk, gives a Boris survival probability higher than not doing so (eg because calling a high risk election prevents a foreseeable ejection by the party) the high risk election will be called. Bet accordingly.
Yes plus even if the Tories lost inflation, indyref2, NIP etc would then be PM Starmer's problem
Yes. I have not voted Labour for decades in a GE. (Local elections are a different matter). But certainly will if Boris is still in charge and Lab have an electable leader. It's 'time for a change' - the best slogan of all.
But I will feel a bit sorry for Labour if they do win next time. It is likely to be a bad one to win and a good one to lose.
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
That’s grim. Sympathies. Can you really not afford to go out and have a pint or two?
What about free things?
The cursed British weather does not help. So much stuff is free and lovely here in Montenegro. You can walk to a beach and dive in the sea; cost: zero.
I appreciate that doesn’t help, but maybe try and think of your local equivalent
No shortage of great beaches near @Gallowgate, though of course it'll cost him in fuel to get to them. For a practical suggestion - Hauxley nature reserve was free entry and worth every penny iirc.
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
I am so sorry to hear that and completely understand and it is good you can talk about it
Various members of my family suffer anxiety and in my eldest son's case severe and prolonged PTSD and anxiety but in his case at long last he is coming out of it and enjoying walks and nature and rediscovering his life
Please seek advice from your GP and we are all here to support you as best we can
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
No turnout is acceptable as the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government would ignore the result whatever the turnout
I'm confused. Why did you make the turnout the plank of your argument then in both posts. And you haven't said where the 1/3 came from?
You put a valid arguement forward. You have just trashed your own argument and still haven't said where the 1/3 came from.
By doing this you lose support from people like me who are open minded on the issue.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
No turnout is acceptable as the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government would ignore the result whatever the turnout
You may be right, but a majority on a respectable turn out might be difficult to ignore, as the SNP use it as grist for the grievance mill. The only way to settle it w beould be with a sanctioned referendum. While I don't think Independence is the settled will of the Scottish people, the idea that Scotland has the right to independence if it chooses is broadly popular. It helps Unionists to be sensitive to that.
Of course, it seems the SNP have jettisoned The Settled Will notion in favour of an attempt to eek out a narrow majority for independence. I also think this is risky, ala Brexit. You don't want to start your political project with half the country against you.
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
That’s grim. Sympathies. Can you really not afford to go out and have a pint or two?
What about free things?
The cursed British weather does not help. So much stuff is free and lovely here in Montenegro. You can walk to a beach and dive in the sea; cost: zero.
I appreciate that doesn’t help, but maybe try and think of your local equivalent
No shortage of great beaches near @Gallowgate, though of course it'll cost him in fuel to get to them. For a practical suggestion - Hauxley nature reserve was free entry and worth every penny iirc.
And make sure you at least have a decent walk round the park or along the Tyne or something every day. It does help. As does cooking a decent meal, however basic.
Anmyway off now to take my own advice and have the daily walk.
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
12% of the medical staff in my dept are off with it this week. Leicester schools break up on the 8th July, so will hit at peak holiday time here. Quite a lot of admissions too with respiratory symptoms.
Yeh gads. Will this ever end?
QTWAIN.
Shirkers with a line on a test but who aren't actually sick should get themselves into work. And stop being hypochondriacs taking tests in the first place.
I'm not for any legal restrictions, but wanting medical staff who knowingly have covid to head into hospitals is just daft. Would you want them in with the flu ? +ve test = wfh in our office, and we're all back in.
If they're fit and able to work, and the only reason you know they have the flu is due to a line on the test? Yes I would.
Abolish all testing. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carry a virus but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
And then other people get too sick to work.
There is this concept you ought to read up. It's called "contagion".
The virus is widespread in the community anyway. People are going to get it.
Contagion doesn't matter. If 14% of the community has it anyway, then any healthy but virus-carrying colleagues not turning up to work just means you've lost the healthy colleague's assistance, not prevented contagion which is an impossibility.
Who said my colleagues off with it are healthy? It is a miserable thing to have, and they are all strongly symptomatic.
Hospital acquired covid is a big killer of vulnerable patients.
Indeed. Barty is weirdly absolutist on this, to the point of ignoring practical realities.
Somebody wrote a brilliant 4 post summary of where we are with covid, on here yesterday (was it @Andy_Cooke?). Very balanced.
My take was: covid is here to stay, NIP are no longer appropriate, vulnerable people can and should take extra precautions, others should take extra care if they are likely to come into close contact with the vulnerable.
That last point alone, means health workers need to remain cautious.
If that costs the NHS more, so be it - health is priceless - tax rich bastards like @BartholomewRoberts (and me, and many of us on here) to pay for it.
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
That’s grim. Sympathies. Can you really not afford to go out and have a pint or two?
What about free things?
The cursed British weather does not help. So much stuff is free and lovely here in Montenegro. You can walk to a beach and dive in the sea; cost: zero.
I appreciate that doesn’t help, but maybe try and think of your local equivalent
No shortage of great beaches near @Gallowgate, though of course it'll cost him in fuel to get to them. For a practical suggestion - Hauxley nature reserve was free entry and worth every penny iirc.
And make sure you at least have a decent walk round the park or along the Tyne or something every day. It does help. As does cooking a decent meal, however basic.
Anmyway off now to take my own advice and have the daily walk.
I always find that my mood improves during periods of my life where I run. As advice, it's almost so flippant as to be offensive to those who are suffering with depression. Additionally, the idea of running around with minimal distraction, inside your own head at such times, feels like torture. Further, I told myself at such times, running doesn't do anything to fix the problem that has caused the situational depression, so what's the point.
The reality is, that it helped. Whether it's just endorphins, whether it's my blood pressure lowering, or whether it gave me the space and time to honestly appraise my problems, I don't know. For me it anchors me in the present. Whatever is happening isn't happening then and there. While I don't think it solved my problems, it did help me cope with them.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
I see the connection, but I don't really agree on this occasion. Sainsbury's employee asking someone not to breastfeed in their carpark was clearly wrong. The right to take your baby into your place of work, the house of commons chamber - I'm not sure. Do I have the right to take my baby to the office? To the chemistry lab (obviously not)?
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
No turnout is acceptable as the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government would ignore the result whatever the turnout
I'm confused. Why did you make the turnout the plank of your argument then in both posts. And you haven't said where the 1/3 came from?
You put a valid arguement forward. You have just trashed your own argument and still haven't said where the 1/3 came from.
By doing this you lose support from people like me who are open minded on the issue.
People like you aren't in government the Tories are and as long as they remain in government will refuse indyref2.
If you LDs and Labour get in government after the next general election and allow an indyref2 it will be up to you to win it and your fault if you lose it having allowed one before a generation since 2014
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
That’s grim. Sympathies. Can you really not afford to go out and have a pint or two?
What about free things?
The cursed British weather does not help. So much stuff is free and lovely here in Montenegro. You can walk to a beach and dive in the sea; cost: zero.
I appreciate that doesn’t help, but maybe try and think of your local equivalent
No shortage of great beaches near @Gallowgate, though of course it'll cost him in fuel to get to them. For a practical suggestion - Hauxley nature reserve was free entry and worth every penny iirc.
And make sure you at least have a decent walk round the park or along the Tyne or something every day. It does help. As does cooking a decent meal, however basic.
Anmyway off now to take my own advice and have the daily walk.
I always find that my mood improves during periods of my life where I run. As advice, it's almost so flippant as to be offensive to those who are suffering with depression. Additionally, the idea of running around with minimal distraction, inside your own head at such times, feels like torture. Further, I told myself at such times, running doesn't do anything to fix the problem that has caused the situational depression, so what's the point.
The reality is, that it helped. Whether it's just endorphins, whether it's my blood pressure lowering, or whether it gave me the space and time to honestly appraise my problems, I don't know. For me it anchors me in the present. Whatever is happening isn't happening then and there. While I don't think it solved my problems, it did help me cope with them.
One of the most crushing aspects of Lockdown 3: the Winter of Hell was the fact they closed all the gyms
I was on my own in a 1 bed flat in Camden, the British winter was particularly cruel that year - just cold enough and wet enough (apparently forever) to make even a walk in the park seriously unpleasant, on many days (and that for just one hour with one friend etc etc etc)
The gym was my last place to do serious exercise outside my own home (somehow important) and I am sure the absence of it contributed to my horrific depression at that time. Exercise REALLY helps, for all the reasons you say. I don’t understand people who dismiss it as “not really tackling the problem” or a “phoney boost to serotonin” or whatever. Who the heck cares. It WORKS
covid LFT test positivity now above 10%. 14 in London
12% of the medical staff in my dept are off with it this week. Leicester schools break up on the 8th July, so will hit at peak holiday time here. Quite a lot of admissions too with respiratory symptoms.
Yeh gads. Will this ever end?
QTWAIN.
Shirkers with a line on a test but who aren't actually sick should get themselves into work. And stop being hypochondriacs taking tests in the first place.
I'm not for any legal restrictions, but wanting medical staff who knowingly have covid to head into hospitals is just daft. Would you want them in with the flu ? +ve test = wfh in our office, and we're all back in.
If they're fit and able to work, and the only reason you know they have the flu is due to a line on the test? Yes I would.
Abolish all testing. Operate on symptoms only. If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that be due to Covid/Flu/Common Cold or A.N.Other bug. If people are carry a virus but are fit and able to work, then get to work.
And then other people get too sick to work.
There is this concept you ought to read up. It's called "contagion".
The virus is widespread in the community anyway. People are going to get it.
Contagion doesn't matter. If 14% of the community has it anyway, then any healthy but virus-carrying colleagues not turning up to work just means you've lost the healthy colleague's assistance, not prevented contagion which is an impossibility.
Who said my colleagues off with it are healthy? It is a miserable thing to have, and they are all strongly symptomatic.
Hospital acquired covid is a big killer of vulnerable patients.
Did you miss where I said those who are strongly symptomatic should be off, if they need to be, regardless of the cause of the symptoms?
If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that is Covid, Influenza, the Common Cold or A.N. Other virus that is making them sick.
If people are fit and healthy, but have a line on a test, then they aren't too sick to work.
Hospital acquired infections are a major killer of people, I agree, which is why washing your hands, wearing masks etc are a common requirement in hospitals are they not?
Viruses spread, people and animals carry viruses. There are more viruses on the planet, than there are stars in the universe. On average approximately one in six people are carrying the common cold at any point of time, and Coronavirus may be as prevalent as the common cold in the future, we need to live with it.
Simply carrying a virus should not be a reason not to work, being genuinely too sick to work (regardless of which virus is making you sick) is a different matter.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
Quite Trumpesque and utterly ridiculous
Utterly ridiculous and never going to happen, I completely agree, but its not Trumpesque remotely.
Going to the voters and letting the voters decide is the polar opposite of what Trump wanted. Its also not going to see the voters say "give Boris another term" right now, so it isn't going to happen either.
HYUFD is being delusional with his own flights of fantasy. Boris with a 76 seat majority would have to be insane to call an election while so far behind in the polls, and if he did then Keir Starmer would be next Prime Minister - and deservedly so!
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
Why would he?
Keir Starmer wouldn't be able to believe his own luck if Boris was stupid enough to call an election at the minute. He'd be utterly up for the election and would be in front of the cameras as fast as he could be to say that he is looking forward to the election and that the country deserves a change of government. The media would be instantly in election mode.
The Tories would be hammered, and deservedly so. Forget a hung Parliament, a Labour majority would be my most likely expectation if Boris was so stupid as to do that now.
Which is why it is simply never going to happen. Its even less likely than Brown calling an election in 2007. Only a fantasist would be suggesting it.
I see the connection, but I don't really agree on this occasion. Sainsbury's employee asking someone not to breastfeed in their carpark was clearly wrong. The right to take your baby into your place of work, the house of commons chamber - I'm not sure. Do I have the right to take my baby to the office? To the chemistry lab (obviously not)?
Should an MP not be subject to the same childcare environment that they legislate for the rest of us, as opposed to exempting themselves from the way normal people have to arrange their affairs?
On the subject of abortion I went and had a look at various states provisions for "abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother".
At best you can say they are very badly written, at worst you could say... well.
The majority of exceptions are only as an affirmative defence. That is, after performing the abortion to save the life of the mother the doctor can still be sued/prosecuted (depending on whether the law is one of the Texas style bounty laws or full on criminalisation) and then the doctor has to go to court and convince the judge/jury that the mother's life was sufficiently at immediate risk to win the defence.
While some states like Alabama explicitly exclude ectopic pregnancies from what is considered abortion other states do not.
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
I'm very sorry to hear this. I'm in the same boat, struggling with it too and recently started taking antidepressants after speaking to my GP. You've tackled this already recently, but don't consider it a problem if you need help to tackle it again, do what works for you. Best wishes. 🤗
Tell me you don't understand how much more infectious Covid is than other viruses without telling me you don't understand how much more infectious Covid is.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
Why would he?
Keir Starmer wouldn't be able to believe his own luck if Boris was stupid enough to call an election at the minute. He'd be utterly up for the election and would be in front of the cameras as fast as he could be to say that he is looking forward to the election and that the country deserves a change of government. The media would be instantly in election mode.
The Tories would be hammered, and deservedly so. Forget a hung Parliament, a Labour majority would be my most likely expectation if Boris was so stupid as to do that now.
Which is why it is simply never going to happen. Its even less likely than Brown calling an election in 2007. Only a fantasist would be suggesting it.
Fair point… I was more considering the earlier question as to whether a mechanism exists to prevent a PM from calling a GE against the will of Parliament… not the specifics of Boris and the here and now.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
I'm very sorry to hear this. I'm in the same boat, struggling with it too and recently started taking antidepressants after speaking to my GP. You've tackled this already recently, but don't consider it a problem if you need help to tackle it again, do what works for you. Best wishes. 🤗
Not nice, sympathies to you, too
Does it have a cause? Or is it a random visit from the Blue Meanies?
The random ones can be worse, in ways, because you can’t even point to the culprit
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
Why would he?
Keir Starmer wouldn't be able to believe his own luck if Boris was stupid enough to call an election at the minute. He'd be utterly up for the election and would be in front of the cameras as fast as he could be to say that he is looking forward to the election and that the country deserves a change of government. The media would be instantly in election mode.
The Tories would be hammered, and deservedly so. Forget a hung Parliament, a Labour majority would be my most likely expectation if Boris was so stupid as to do that now.
Which is why it is simply never going to happen. Its even less likely than Brown calling an election in 2007. Only a fantasist would be suggesting it.
If Boris thinks he has more chance of winning a general election on opposition to a Labour, SNP, LD coalition of chaos ticket than surviving another VONC amongst Tory MPs he will do
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
That would be a constitutional outrage. I was a huge fan of fixed-term parliaments but all that's gone. We're back in the realms of PMs causing mayhem and strife by playing games about when they will call a General Election. And this is progress?
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
I'm very sorry to hear this. I'm in the same boat, struggling with it too and recently started taking antidepressants after speaking to my GP. You've tackled this already recently, but don't consider it a problem if you need help to tackle it again, do what works for you. Best wishes. 🤗
Very sorry to hear of you two's personal struggles. I know of what you speak.
Hopefully PB can help in a small way by providing some light relief and some online company.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
No turnout is acceptable as the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government would ignore the result whatever the turnout
I'm confused. Why did you make the turnout the plank of your argument then in both posts. And you haven't said where the 1/3 came from?
You put a valid arguement forward. You have just trashed your own argument and still haven't said where the 1/3 came from.
By doing this you lose support from people like me who are open minded on the issue.
People like you aren't in government the Tories are and as long as they remain in government will refuse indyref2.
If you LDs and Labour get in government after the next general election and allow an indyref2 it will be up to you to win it and your fault if you lose it having allowed one before a generation since 2014
Honestly you are throwing away potential support. You seem to be picking an argument with me when I don't actually necessarily disagree with you.
I have no settled view re Scottish Independence (see my post in reply to @Casino_Royale) and I agree with you that if turnout is below a certain level that is important (It is why I don't vote in Police Commissioner elections).
You brought up the issue of it being invalid if the turnout was too low due to a boycott (with which I would agree) so I simply asked you what would be your measure of too low. You then seemed to (unnecessarily) trash your own argument (why?).
I also asked you where a figure you quoted came from because it did not appear obvious from the previous post you made. And for some bizarre reason you won't tell me.
Do you want support for your cause or not, because I am open minded to be persuaded.
Tell me you don't understand how much more infectious Covid is than other viruses without telling me you don't understand how much more infectious Covid is.
Anecdotally I now have multiple friends and family with Covid. It really is back, big time
FFS. I know this is the new normal but I hate the new normal
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
Why would he?
Keir Starmer wouldn't be able to believe his own luck if Boris was stupid enough to call an election at the minute. He'd be utterly up for the election and would be in front of the cameras as fast as he could be to say that he is looking forward to the election and that the country deserves a change of government. The media would be instantly in election mode.
The Tories would be hammered, and deservedly so. Forget a hung Parliament, a Labour majority would be my most likely expectation if Boris was so stupid as to do that now.
Which is why it is simply never going to happen. Its even less likely than Brown calling an election in 2007. Only a fantasist would be suggesting it.
Fair point… I was more considering the earlier question as to whether a mechanism exists to prevent a PM from calling a GE against the will of Parliament… not the specifics of Boris and the here and now.
Not really, no, we're back in the Royal Prerogative situation that existed pre-FTPA. That's already the law again.
So the Lascelles Principles would apply I assume, but they're extremely tightly restricted.
It worth noting that the second of the original Lascelles requirements was apparently dropped by 1994, so the revised Lascelles Principles would be
(1) the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job; (2) a General Election would be detrimental to the national economy; (3) he could rely on finding another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
I would have thought that the furthest he could get with that would be to resign as head of Her Government. It would then be up to the Conservative MPs to see if there was an alternative government waiting in the wings, and ready to assume its responsibilities.
This is a classic example of the problem of primaries: only the most committed (i.e. hardcore) vote in their party's primaries, and therefore the candidates selected tend to be from the extreme end of the spectrum.
You are therefore seeing State legislatures crafting laws which are going to be pretty unpopular.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Well it's more than off but it's what used to happen prior to Covid with people happily taking their light flu in to share it around because they couldn't "afford" to take the day off.
Nowadays doing that in an office environment is getting frowned upon (as they can work from home) but that isn't true elsewhere.
This is a classic example of the problem of primaries: only the most committed (i.e. hardcore) vote in their party's primaries, and therefore the candidates selected tend to be from the extreme end of the spectrum.
You are therefore seeing State legislatures crafting laws which are going to be pretty unpopular.
If they're actually unpopular then the State legislatures should lose the General Election to whichever Party chooses non hardcore primary options.
Unfortunately, the issue seems to be that being batshit crazy isn't that unpopular Stateside.
Tell me you don't understand how much more infectious Covid is than other viruses without telling me you don't understand how much more infectious Covid is.
Anecdotally I now have multiple friends and family with Covid. It really is back, big time
FFS. I know this is the new normal but I hate the new normal
Yeah, it’s back.
I’m somewhere where the testing and mask-wearing never went away, and our daily cases are 5x what they were a month ago.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
Quite Trumpesque and utterly ridiculous
Utterly ridiculous and never going to happen, I completely agree, but its not Trumpesque remotely.
Going to the voters and letting the voters decide is the polar opposite of what Trump wanted. Its also not going to see the voters say "give Boris another term" right now, so it isn't going to happen either.
HYUFD is being delusional with his own flights of fantasy. Boris with a 76 seat majority would have to be insane to call an election while so far behind in the polls, and if he did then Keir Starmer would be next Prime Minister - and deservedly so!
The suggestion I saw this morning is he is going to call it before the Harman led Privilege Committee publishes in full all the ways he has been blatantly corrupt.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Well it's more than off but it's what used to happen prior to Covid with people happily taking their light flu in to share it around because they couldn't "afford" to take the day off.
Nowadays doing that in an office environment is getting frowned upon (as they can work from home) but that isn't true elsewhere.
People are inconsiderate, selfish arseholes
If you want them to do something, you have to legally force them
Look at the tubes - we'd like you to wear a mask, 90% don't. You must wear a mask, 90% do.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Well it's more than off but it's what used to happen prior to Covid with people happily taking their light flu in to share it around because they couldn't "afford" to take the day off.
Nowadays doing that in an office environment is getting frowned upon (as they can work from home) but that isn't true elsewhere.
People are inconsiderate, selfish arseholes
If you want them to do something, you have to legally force them
Look at the tubes - we'd like you to wear a mask, 90% don't. You must wear a mask, 90% do.
Liberty is about letting people make their own choices, even what you think are aresholeish choices.
To me its a good thing that 90% are choosing not to wear a mask, it means they're making their own choice that they want - and the other 10% are making their own choice that they want. We should respect everyone else's right to decide and the 10% should not force their choice upon the 90% . . . but quite equally the 90% should not force their choice on the 10% either.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
It should be, but we need to sort out sick pay to have a chance of that being the norm. There really is a big class divide in how people are paid when off sick, middle class jobs it is generally normal pay, working class jobs it is statutory only which is not sufficient.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
It is not the common cold.
No, but its almost as prevalent as it. We need to start treating it the same, which does not mean it is the same.
Tell me you don't understand how much more infectious Covid is than other viruses without telling me you don't understand how much more infectious Covid is.
Anecdotally I now have multiple friends and family with Covid. It really is back, big time
FFS. I know this is the new normal but I hate the new normal
Having miraculously avoided it so far I keep hoping it will burn itself out before it gets me (herd immunity), but then a new variant keeps arising or people aren't becoming immune. I guess I might find out soon what the impact will be on a covid virgin getting it.
The suggestion I saw this morning is he is going to call it before the Harman led Privilege Committee publishes in full all the ways he has been blatantly corrupt.
Some are suggesting Johnson will call a snap election to bypass the Commons Privileges Committee investigation.
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
That’s grim. Sympathies. Can you really not afford to go out and have a pint or two?
What about free things?
The cursed British weather does not help. So much stuff is free and lovely here in Montenegro. You can walk to a beach and dive in the sea; cost: zero.
I appreciate that doesn’t help, but maybe try and think of your local equivalent
No shortage of great beaches near @Gallowgate, though of course it'll cost him in fuel to get to them. For a practical suggestion - Hauxley nature reserve was free entry and worth every penny iirc.
And make sure you at least have a decent walk round the park or along the Tyne or something every day. It does help. As does cooking a decent meal, however basic.
Anmyway off now to take my own advice and have the daily walk.
I always find that my mood improves during periods of my life where I run. As advice, it's almost so flippant as to be offensive to those who are suffering with depression. Additionally, the idea of running around with minimal distraction, inside your own head at such times, feels like torture. Further, I told myself at such times, running doesn't do anything to fix the problem that has caused the situational depression, so what's the point.
The reality is, that it helped. Whether it's just endorphins, whether it's my blood pressure lowering, or whether it gave me the space and time to honestly appraise my problems, I don't know. For me it anchors me in the present. Whatever is happening isn't happening then and there. While I don't think it solved my problems, it did help me cope with them.
I have found this with running too in the past. Unfortunately my knees are currently crocked.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
No turnout is acceptable as the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government would ignore the result whatever the turnout
I'm confused. Why did you make the turnout the plank of your argument then in both posts. And you haven't said where the 1/3 came from?
You put a valid arguement forward. You have just trashed your own argument and still haven't said where the 1/3 came from.
By doing this you lose support from people like me who are open minded on the issue.
People like you aren't in government the Tories are and as long as they remain in government will refuse indyref2.
If you LDs and Labour get in government after the next general election and allow an indyref2 it will be up to you to win it and your fault if you lose it having allowed one before a generation since 2014
Honestly you are throwing away potential support. You seem to be picking an argument with me when I don't actually necessarily disagree with you.
I have no settled view re Scottish Independence (see my post in reply to @Casino_Royale) and I agree with you that if turnout is below a certain level that is important (It is why I don't vote in Police Commissioner elections).
You brought up the issue of it being invalid if the turnout was too low due to a boycott (with which I would agree) so I simply asked you what would be your measure of too low. You then seemed to (unnecessarily) trash your own argument (why?).
I also asked you where a figure you quoted came from because it did not appear obvious from the previous post you made. And for some bizarre reason you won't tell me.
Do you want support for your cause or not, because I am open minded to be persuaded.
If you are in government and your party allows indyref2 with Labour and loses it it will be your fault
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
*Any* virus?
‘Please ignore the hemorrhaging from my eyeballs, it’s nothing.’
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
It's none of the old cow's business is it? She doesn't get to interfere in the political process of the country.
This is a classic example of the problem of primaries: only the most committed (i.e. hardcore) vote in their party's primaries, and therefore the candidates selected tend to be from the extreme end of the spectrum.
You are therefore seeing State legislatures crafting laws which are going to be pretty unpopular.
Interesting the list of companies who are now extending their employee health cover to include travel and accommodation costs for people needing to travel out of state for medical procedures. BP and Shell announced this yesterday, joining Microsoft, Apple and Bank of America. Lots more planning on doing the same.
The suggestion I saw this morning is he is going to call it before the Harman led Privilege Committee publishes in full all the ways he has been blatantly corrupt.
Some are suggesting Johnson will call a snap election to bypass the Commons Privileges Committee investigation.
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
Under the Lascelles Principles why should the Queen having anything to say about it?
But its an utterly delusional suggestion. There is no way that Boris would commit political suicide this way and want to be humiliated at an election. It'd be easier for him to just resign instead.
The suggestion I saw this morning is he is going to call it before the Harman led Privilege Committee publishes in full all the ways he has been blatantly corrupt.
Some are suggesting Johnson will call a snap election to bypass the Commons Privileges Committee investigation.
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
Yes I did wonder about the latter. I'm all for the Queen not getting involved in stuff, as I have said before, but on the basis that he has to ask the question, you might think she might ask 'Why?' and 'Do you have support of your cabinet for this decision?'. Having said that I don't want her to interfere and it is up to the Tory party to stop him if they think he is wrong. I was about to say fat chance of that, but some are going to be looking at unemployment.
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
It's none of the old cow's business is it? She doesn't get to interfere in the political process of the country.
I found walks on the beach helped a bit. Watching the sea is very soothing.
But when I am back in the Lakes if you fancy a scoot round the unknown but v beautiful bit of the Lakes with one of the finest beaches in England let me know.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
Why would he?
Keir Starmer wouldn't be able to believe his own luck if Boris was stupid enough to call an election at the minute. He'd be utterly up for the election and would be in front of the cameras as fast as he could be to say that he is looking forward to the election and that the country deserves a change of government. The media would be instantly in election mode.
The Tories would be hammered, and deservedly so. Forget a hung Parliament, a Labour majority would be my most likely expectation if Boris was so stupid as to do that now.
Which is why it is simply never going to happen. Its even less likely than Brown calling an election in 2007. Only a fantasist would be suggesting it.
Fair point… I was more considering the earlier question as to whether a mechanism exists to prevent a PM from calling a GE against the will of Parliament… not the specifics of Boris and the here and now.
Not really, no, we're back in the Royal Prerogative situation that existed pre-FTPA. That's already the law again.
So the Lascelles Principles would apply I assume, but they're extremely tightly restricted.
It worth noting that the second of the original Lascelles requirements was apparently dropped by 1994, so the revised Lascelles Principles would be
(1) the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job; (2) a General Election would be detrimental to the national economy; (3) he could rely on finding another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons.
So the Speaker declares that prorogation will be delayed for a week to allow 1) and 3) to be put to the test?
I see the connection, but I don't really agree on this occasion. Sainsbury's employee asking someone not to breastfeed in their carpark was clearly wrong. The right to take your baby into your place of work, the house of commons chamber - I'm not sure. Do I have the right to take my baby to the office? To the chemistry lab (obviously not)?
Should an MP not be subject to the same childcare environment that they legislate for the rest of us, as opposed to exempting themselves from the way normal people have to arrange their affairs?
Been thinking about this as an ex-employer! There's no way we could've coped with childcare in either a community or a hospital one although possibly it could be easier in the latter. Indeed I can't think of a retail environment where a tiny baby could be accommodated.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
*Any* virus?
‘Please ignore the hemorrhaging from my eyeballs, it’s nothing.’
If you're hemorrhaging from your eyeballs I'd rather recommend that's a reason to go based on your symptoms, which is what I said, rather than a line on a test.
Or are you suggesting that if you were hemorrhaging from your eyeballs, but there was no line on your test, you'd go into work as normal?
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
It is not the common cold.
No, but its almost as prevalent as it. We need to start treating it the same, which does not mean it is the same.
Once again you completely and totally fail to understand how much more infectious and virulent Covid is than other viruses - you can't treat it like other viruses because it is so much more infectious.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
It is not the common cold.
No, but its almost as prevalent as it. We need to start treating it the same, which does not mean it is the same.
Once again you completely and totally fail to understand how much more infectious and virulent Covid is than other viruses - you can't treat it like other viruses because it is so much more infectious.
Quite the contrary, I think you should treat it like other viruses precisely because it is so much more infectious.
Only zero covid headbangers are still so foolish as to think preventing infections of Covid is possible, you might as well try to hold back the tide with your fingers.
Treat the virulence, not the infectiousness. Treat symptoms, not infections.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
It is not the common cold.
It is endemic like the common cold or flu. It will be forever more.
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
It's none of the old cow's business is it? She doesn't get to interfere in the political process of the country.
Quite right. If Boris wants to call a General Election he's absolutely entitled to do so. Sadly, we're going to be having these 'Boris about to call a snap GE' stories regularly for the next couple of years, as Boris will find them a useful tool for distracting and confusing his opponents.
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
It's none of the old cow's business is it? She doesn't get to interfere in the political process of the country.
In any case Sturgeon didn’t curtsy to her yesterday, this lèse-majesté is bound to bring on London Bridge.
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
It's none of the old cow's business is it? She doesn't get to interfere in the political process of the country.
Correct. The Queen acts on the advice of her first minister.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
Why would he?
Keir Starmer wouldn't be able to believe his own luck if Boris was stupid enough to call an election at the minute. He'd be utterly up for the election and would be in front of the cameras as fast as he could be to say that he is looking forward to the election and that the country deserves a change of government. The media would be instantly in election mode.
The Tories would be hammered, and deservedly so. Forget a hung Parliament, a Labour majority would be my most likely expectation if Boris was so stupid as to do that now.
Which is why it is simply never going to happen. Its even less likely than Brown calling an election in 2007. Only a fantasist would be suggesting it.
If Boris thinks he has more chance of winning a general election on opposition to a Labour, SNP, LD coalition of chaos ticket than surviving another VONC amongst Tory MPs he will do
And a 'coalition of chaos' as described would be worse than the present collection of second-raters, mountebanks and general incompetents led by someone who has no respect for decency and honour or indeed the truth?
I see the connection, but I don't really agree on this occasion. Sainsbury's employee asking someone not to breastfeed in their carpark was clearly wrong. The right to take your baby into your place of work, the house of commons chamber - I'm not sure. Do I have the right to take my baby to the office? To the chemistry lab (obviously not)?
Should an MP not be subject to the same childcare environment that they legislate for the rest of us, as opposed to exempting themselves from the way normal people have to arrange their affairs?
Framing a putative bar on babies in the House as an attack on "mothers with babies" is OTT. 99.999 per cent of mothers with babies would find themselves locked in a small cell if they barged into the Commons chamber. For MPs with babies, debates can be followed from outside the Chamber, and if it is desired to take part in a debate, surely someone could be found to look after the baby for an hour or so, and would it really be feasible to make a speech while comforting a baby anyway? Maternity leave for MPs would seem more important than this.
But since this appears to be about precisely one MP, it is hard to care whether they change the rules or not. Stella Creasy used to be on the long list for future Labour leader, and was runner-up in the Deputy Leadership election. Unlike most backbenchers, let alone Opposition backbenchers she had achieved something solid with her campaign against payday lending and also on NI abortion rights. Now?
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
Well, judging from what Daughter and Husband are telling me it is nothing like the common cold but much worse.
If someone had a tubercular cough, we wouldn't want them at work, would we?
What Son was cross about was being lied to by his colleague. Plus being put at risk himself and putting me at risk.
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.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
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.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
I agree with @kinabalu. That is a badly worded question. There is a big emotional difference between saying it is the mothers decision and aborting a baby within 10 min of birth. I suspect how you word the far extreme will get very different results and that worded differently that figure would be way way way lower. Or do you really think 19% of Americans really believe it is ok to murder babies?
Framing it like that certainly doesn't describe the reality. How many women ever have, or are ever going to carry a pregnancy for nine months and decide to abort it "within 10 minutes of birth" on some kind of whim ? And how many physicians would carry out such a procedure, even if it were legal ?
The reality if that third trimester abortions are pretty rare - a bit over 1% of all cases. And they are often pretty hard cases - serious threats to the mother's life; lethal fatal abnormalities, etc.
That's right. Nevertheless I doubt almost 20% of Americans truly support zero controls around abortion. And even if they do the legislative pressure is coming from the other direction - to ban it entirely. So we don't have a case of 2 equally supported extremes fighting it out here. That's not the essence of this. That is not what is going on. This is where I was coming from really.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
You missed the question. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. My question was where did the 1/3 come from and what turnout is acceptable?
No turnout is acceptable as the Union is reserved to Westminster and the UK government would ignore the result whatever the turnout
I'm confused. Why did you make the turnout the plank of your argument then in both posts. And you haven't said where the 1/3 came from?
You put a valid arguement forward. You have just trashed your own argument and still haven't said where the 1/3 came from.
By doing this you lose support from people like me who are open minded on the issue.
People like you aren't in government the Tories are and as long as they remain in government will refuse indyref2.
If you LDs and Labour get in government after the next general election and allow an indyref2 it will be up to you to win it and your fault if you lose it having allowed one before a generation since 2014
Honestly you are throwing away potential support. You seem to be picking an argument with me when I don't actually necessarily disagree with you.
I have no settled view re Scottish Independence (see my post in reply to @Casino_Royale) and I agree with you that if turnout is below a certain level that is important (It is why I don't vote in Police Commissioner elections).
You brought up the issue of it being invalid if the turnout was too low due to a boycott (with which I would agree) so I simply asked you what would be your measure of too low. You then seemed to (unnecessarily) trash your own argument (why?).
I also asked you where a figure you quoted came from because it did not appear obvious from the previous post you made. And for some bizarre reason you won't tell me.
Do you want support for your cause or not, because I am open minded to be persuaded.
If you are in government and your party allows indyref2 with Labour and loses it it will be your fault
Oh for goodness sake it is like a broken record. Did you read my posts at all? Do you understand the English language? What on earth has that reply got to do with what I wrote?
I am here open to persuasion. Go on persuade me.
What is the point of arguing with me when I am not arguing back. I am not disagreeing with you. This is like a Monty Python sketch.
Convince me of your argument. You stated an opinion and a fact (I assume it was a fact). I am open minded to that opinion and asked for more info and an expansion of your opinion.
Umpteen posts later I have got nothing from you but a very defensive attitude as If I was disagreeing with you. I am not.
I think if everyone acted in the way St Bart advocated, covid prevalence would be permanently around 30% of the population or so. Perhaps higher. We'd all get more cases than Keir Starmer.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
Well, judging from what Daughter and Husband are telling me it is nothing like the common cold but much worse.
If someone had a tubercular cough, we wouldn't want them at work, would we?
What Son was cross about was being lied to by his colleague. Plus being put at risk himself and putting me at risk.
I agree that its off to be lied to, that is wrong, unquestionably, but "being put at risk" is not wrong and with respect its that attitude against people who are acting entirely lawfully that probably led him to feel it was easier to lie - which I wouldn't justify the dishonesty but its kind of related. If someone asked me, I'd just say it might be Covid, I don't know, since I won't be getting tested.
I do not agree that it is wrong to be at work when you have Covid though - and advice is just advice, not a requirement.
If people are too sick to work they shouldn't be working whether that's a common cold or covid, but if they're not too sick to work and its just an intermittent cough and they wash their hands etc after coughing then that's not a problem in my eyes - but you should be honest about it.
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.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
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.
If a majority of people in Utah or the deep South oppose gay marriage they will elect governors and legislators who also oppose gay marriage, that is inevitable and democracy. Given this states rights SC that is where we are heading.
However most other states in the US will still back gay marriage so it is not exactly as if they have nowhere to go.
How many homosexuals move to the third of countries in the world where homosexuality is still illegal?
Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. Many of these same states used to outlaw interracial marriage, also on a pretext taken from scripture. Laws made by democratically elected officials. Was that okay too? And if they go back to that - would you support that as their right? What if they started burning witches? Also fine as long as it is backed by a majority? The US is a federal country but it is still a single country where certain rights of equal treatment should be guaranteed everywhere. It is also a democracy but also a liberal Republic where individual rights are meant to be protected. One thing is clear: the Scotus abortion ruling has opened the way to a concerted attack on the rights of those who don't match up to the fundamentalist Christian ideal.
Most people in the Deep South and border states of the US, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina etc are fundamentalist Christians. They are a million miles from the coastal liberal states in social values and indeed closer to much of Eastern Europe than the rest of the West.
You may not like that but unfortunately democracy does not always lead to liberalism winning and the USA is the United States of America not just United America
But it does lead to two countries from one perhaps.
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and (maybe) Arkansas are Deep South states.
Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia are NOT. They are part (historically, culturally, economically, politically) of the Upper South.
Conflating one with other is NOT a confidence builder re: conclusions drawn from such "analysis"
And that, my friend, is why your cross-pond presence here is very welcome to me that my assumptions about a foreign country are wild generalisations rather than having to actually read anything else and learn for myself!
The Illinois Republican governor race really is worth reading about. The Democrat incumbent actually helped the Trumpist beat the moderate with attack ads and money of their own. The democrats helped select a candidate they believe is far too right wing ever to beat their man.
Good tactics I guess, but a faint whiff of hubris
That has the potential to backfire spectacularly in November.
Yes I guess but it is Illinois.
The thing about the republicans is the leadership (McConnell and McCarthy) probably dislike the Trumpists almost as much as the dems do. Maybe more.
With Trumpists endorsed candidates overcoming moderates in the primaries in many states, what do the leadership really want in November? a massive win? or just enough to take back, say, the House?
The SC verdict may well get them neither, Trump's SC nominations have been great for the US pro life movement and ensure the SC will rule unconstitutional any nationwide abortion right law but may well put the GOP out of power in both the White House and Congress for a decade.
Pro choice swing states like Florida and Michigan for example will now lean Democrat.
It depends how big of an issue pro choice really is in America, given that many states will always be pro-choice.
The New York Times is bemoaning how Dobbs was expected to boost turnout in Tuesday's primaries, especially democrat.
It really didn't.
Bit early too tell re: turnout for 2022. Note that NY State NOT a good test, as yesterday's primary was just for Gov & Lt Gov, which incumbents both won by landslides despite fact that each has only been in current office a bit more than 15 minutes.
Also plenty of voters NEVER vote in primaries in first place, because they are waiting for the "real' election even when, as practical matter, primary proves decisive to final outcome.
There were some polls showing big swings to dems after the verdict too, to be fair, but could be kneejerk I guess.
One thing for sure, repeal of Roe v Wade is kind of "event" capable of making a week a long time politically-speaking. Let alone four and a half months.
30% of the US is hardcore anti-abortion. About 30% is hardcore pro-choice.
The rest - mostly - think it's a debate about exactly when the line should be drawn, and what exemptions there should in the event of threat to the mothers' life, rape, etc.
Some people in the 40% will think 10 weeks. Others 20. Most aren't particularly keen on abortion, but think blanket bans are a bad idea.
Between now and the end of the year will be some pretty horrendous stories. There will be women who will commit suicide because they are unable to get an abortion. Stories will come out about teenagers raped by their uncle or teacher and forced to carry a baby to term. And there will be well publicized medical emergencies where both baby and mother die, because of the inability to secure an abortion under any circumstances in certain states.
At the same time, the loonies will start pushing "fetal personhood laws". And anyone who has had a miscarriage (which will be most women) will start feeling the beginnings of discomfort. As will pretty much every Obsgyn and Primary Care Provider.
All these stories will weigh on the 40%. And that's the real danger for the Republicans. If they're pushing for fetal personhood, while the Dems are focusing on the raped teenager who committed suicide... Then I think the transwars will be forgotten (for the moment).
The Dems have caught a massive break. Whether it's enough to save them in November is another story altogether.
What exactly is ‘hardcore pro choice’ ? I can imagine a few answers to that, but none which would approach 30% of the population.
It’s pretty grim. It is abortion on demand, for any reason, right up to the 40th week. That is: to birth
There are definitely elements in America that take this perverse and disturbing position. They have tried to get laws passed to this effect. I don’t believe it is anything like 30% of the USA tho
Per rcs graph that's 19%. 1 in 5. Which I'm skeptical of. I reckon most of those people haven't thought about it properly. They've just looked at the question and gone, "right I'm on the prog side here, I'm opposite to those loony tunes pro-lifers, so I answer THAT, abortion legal, end of".
Ah, OK. So you, @kinabalu have decided that what they say they think isn’t what they think, and you have instead worked out what they REALLY think, because they are too dumb to express it. I’m sure 19% of America will be grateful
I agree with @kinabalu. That is a badly worded question. There is a big emotional difference between saying it is the mothers decision and aborting a baby within 10 min of birth. I suspect how you word the far extreme will get very different results and that worded differently that figure would be way way way lower. Or do you really think 19% of Americans really believe it is ok to murder babies?
Framing it like that certainly doesn't describe the reality. How many women ever have, or are ever going to carry a pregnancy for nine months and decide to abort it "within 10 minutes of birth" on some kind of whim ? And how many physicians would carry out such a procedure, even if it were legal ?
The reality if that third trimester abortions are pretty rare - a bit over 1% of all cases. And they are often pretty hard cases - serious threats to the mother's life; lethal fatal abnormalities, etc.
That's right. Nevertheless I doubt almost 20% of Americans truly support zero controls around abortion. And even if they do the legislative pressure is coming from the other direction - to ban it entirely. So we don't have a case of 2 equally supported extremes fighting it out here. That's not the essence of this. That is not what is going on. This is where I was coming from really.
Would you take part in a referendum held without a Section 30 order?
Would 67% Would not 17%
Whoops!! Douglas Ross needs a wee rethink.
If a third of Scots don't vote in a Scottish indyref2 after the UK government tells them to boycott it that would be well down on 2014.
53% of Scots oppose an indyref2 too and of course the UK government would correctly ignore the result and refuse to make any change whatsoever to the Union after it
Where did the 1/3 come from? And below what percentage of the total electorate voting does it take for a result to be invalid?
The fact only 67% say they would vote even before the UK government tells Scots to boycott it (and No is still on 51%). This government would of course refuse to grant a s30 so the result would be invalid whatever the turnout.
However there is also now a strong chance Boris will call a UK general election either in the autumn or next Spring on a ticket of stopping a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 with a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP ie before October 2023
Good morning
The idea Boris is about to cut and run taking the conservative party to oblivion in one of the most ridiculous acts of self immolution is weird beyond belief, let alone him being actually able to do it without the support of his party
The likelihood is he will call a general election on a platform of stopping a coalition of chaos of Labour, the LDs and SNP and a weakening of Brexit and indyref2 and will do so before the end of autumn 2023
As the FTPA has been repealed and calling a general election is now back as the prerogative of the PM not a thing Tory MPs could do about it
You really are now at Trump levels of democracy and if you think his colleagues could not stop him then you are in a fantasy world
Is there a mechanism where they can stop him?
1922 Committee
Not if he has already announced a general election having already just met and agreed it privately with the Queen
What if the speaker refuses to read out the prorogation announcement?
Why would he?
Keir Starmer wouldn't be able to believe his own luck if Boris was stupid enough to call an election at the minute. He'd be utterly up for the election and would be in front of the cameras as fast as he could be to say that he is looking forward to the election and that the country deserves a change of government. The media would be instantly in election mode.
The Tories would be hammered, and deservedly so. Forget a hung Parliament, a Labour majority would be my most likely expectation if Boris was so stupid as to do that now.
Which is why it is simply never going to happen. Its even less likely than Brown calling an election in 2007. Only a fantasist would be suggesting it.
Fair point… I was more considering the earlier question as to whether a mechanism exists to prevent a PM from calling a GE against the will of Parliament… not the specifics of Boris and the here and now.
Not really, no, we're back in the Royal Prerogative situation that existed pre-FTPA. That's already the law again.
So the Lascelles Principles would apply I assume, but they're extremely tightly restricted.
It worth noting that the second of the original Lascelles requirements was apparently dropped by 1994, so the revised Lascelles Principles would be
(1) the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job; (2) a General Election would be detrimental to the national economy; (3) he could rely on finding another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons.
So the Speaker declares that prorogation will be delayed for a week to allow 1) and 3) to be put to the test?
The Speaker (or the Commons for that matter) plays no role in prorogation. That develoves to the Lords Commissioners (they with the syncronised doffing) representing the Crown. Actual dissolution follows almost immediately thereafter.
In the manifestly absurd scenario posited by HYFUD, the Queen only announces the date of dissolution; it doesn't take effect at once. So should two thirds of the Cabinet (whatever) denounce the rogue act and Tory MPs vote No Confidence, Her Majesty can simply change her mind and a new government formed.
Prior to Covid emerging my friend who had Cystic Fibrosis and laterally a lung transplant could happily attend crowded events, including sweaty gigs.
After Covid's emergence they wouldn't be able to do that. I mean they can't because they are dead, killed by Covid, but even if they were alive they would completely locked out of society because of the massive, massive, massive difference in infectivity.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
Well, judging from what Daughter and Husband are telling me it is nothing like the common cold but much worse.
If someone had a tubercular cough, we wouldn't want them at work, would we?
What Son was cross about was being lied to by his colleague. Plus being put at risk himself and putting me at risk.
I agree that its off to be lied to, that is wrong, unquestionably.
I do not agree that it is wrong to be at work when you have Covid though - and advice is just advice, not a requirement.
If people are too sick to work they shouldn't be working whether that's a common cold or covid, but if they're not too sick to work and its just an intermittent cough and they wash their hands etc after coughing then that's not a problem in my eyes - but you should be honest about it.
I see where you are coming from. For me though it means that I will likely have to restrict my activities in some way for good because I simply cannot afford to expose myself to infection. Fair enough: the world should not revolve around the vulnerable to the detriment of others.
But I do feel that people ought to think a bit harder about whether it makes sense to come into work when they are sick. The whole "I'm a hero by struggling in and spreading disease around the place" culture is very bad manners, quite unnecessary and potentially very harmful. A bit of consideration for others would not go amiss.
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
If it's any help, I've found that almost any physical activity (in fact, almost any activity at all) helps to slap depression in the face.
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I made a personal breakthrough when I realised that the core of depression was the drive to inertia (i.e: Don't do anything, there's no point to doing anything, just be inert). And that, with the way that things can mentally self-reinforce, it's often being inert that generates more of the depressive drive to further inertia. As well as frustration and stress of course - which generate adrenaline that can't be burned off, because physical action doesn't help address the root causes of that frustration and stress.
Doing almost anything can break that rut and self-reinforce away from it. And can start to burn off the various hormones around it, further self-reinforcing.
As I say, it might just be me, but in my experience, doing something, preferably physical, can really help. And don't hesitate to reach out to others - that depression is also purely internally focused (so external people can damage the core of the depression).
I’m now sure I have covid. Suddenly got a headache and feeling tired. Thanks everyone
This is the umpteenth time you have thought it, so take a test as otherwise none of us are going to believe you. Mind you if you have never had it I think we would all be gobsmacked.
Prior to Covid emerging my friend who had Cystic Fibrosis and laterally a lung transplant could happily attend crowded events, including sweaty gigs.
After Covid's emergence they wouldn't be able to do that. I mean they can't because they are dead, killed by Covid, but even if they were alive they would completely locked out of society because of the massive, massive, massive difference in infectivity.
Sorry for the loss of your friend, but Covid is endemic like the common cold now. Which means we need to treat it similar to how we treat the common cold and other endemic viruses.
The zero covid idea is dead and buried precisely because of the massive difference in infectivity you cited.
If people are "locked out of society" then they need to think why? Is it because they're waiting until Covid has gone, because that's never going to happen, anymore than waiting for the common cold to be gone.
Learning to live with covid means learning to live with endemic covid, not learning to make covid go away.
I’m now sure I have covid. Suddenly got a headache and feeling tired. Thanks everyone
That's just the side effects of reading some HYUFD posts on Scottish Independence.
The weird thing is, in his relentless mule-headed way, @HYUFD is largely right about Sindyref. No UK Tory government will allow it, they will use the generation argument until it is exhausted (after a generation)
I doubt even a Labour govt would do it, tho they might be willing to compromise more
However @HYUFD’s talents for persuasion somewhat let him down when he expresses this
On a personal note I am starting to struggle with depression again because the cost of living is making it impossible to afford to go out and do things other than work. I’m feeling very isolated.
If it's any help, I've found that almost any physical activity (in fact, almost any activity at all) helps to slap depression in the face.
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I made a personal breakthrough when I realised that the core of depression was the drive to inertia (i.e: Don't do anything, there's no point to doing anything, just be inert). And that, with the way that things can mentally self-reinforce, it's often being inert that generates more of the depressive drive to further inertia. As well as frustration and stress of course - which generate adrenaline that can't be burned off, because physical action doesn't help address the root causes of that frustration and stress.
Doing almost anything can break that rut and self-reinforce away from it. And can start to burn off the various hormones around it, further self-reinforcing.
As I say, it might just be me, but in my experience, doing something, preferably physical, can really help. And don't hesitate to reach out to others - that depression is also purely internally focused (so external people can damage the core of the depression).
Exercise works. FWIW when I get the blues, I've found the notion that "well I accept I can't be happy, but at least I can make others happy" a useful thing. I start doing a few things for others, and slowly I claw myself out of the abyss. I've also found I have reached a bit of a wall when it comes to working from home.
I’m now sure I have covid. Suddenly got a headache and feeling tired. Thanks everyone
That's just the side effects of reading some HYUFD posts on Scottish Independence.
The weird thing is, in his relentless mule-headed way, @HYUFD is largely right about Sindyref. No UK Tory government will allow it, they will use the generation argument until it is exhausted (after a generation)
I doubt even a Labour govt would do it, tho they might be willing to compromise more
However @HYUFD’s talents for persuasion somewhat let him down when he expresses this
Yep @hyufd may well be right, but your last sentence is the understatement of the decade.
A colleague of son came to work yesterday coughing. Denied that he had Covid. Then son heard from manager that colleague did indeed have Covid. Son now worried that he may have caught it and will pass it on to me.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Respectfully, no, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
Well, judging from what Daughter and Husband are telling me it is nothing like the common cold but much worse.
If someone had a tubercular cough, we wouldn't want them at work, would we?
What Son was cross about was being lied to by his colleague. Plus being put at risk himself and putting me at risk.
I agree that its off to be lied to, that is wrong, unquestionably.
I do not agree that it is wrong to be at work when you have Covid though - and advice is just advice, not a requirement.
If people are too sick to work they shouldn't be working whether that's a common cold or covid, but if they're not too sick to work and its just an intermittent cough and they wash their hands etc after coughing then that's not a problem in my eyes - but you should be honest about it.
I see where you are coming from. For me though it means that I will likely have to restrict my activities in some way for good because I simply cannot afford to expose myself to infection. Fair enough: the world should not revolve around the vulnerable to the detriment of others.
But I do feel that people ought to think a bit harder about whether it makes sense to come into work when they are sick. The whole "I'm a hero by struggling in and spreading disease around the place" culture is very bad manners, quite unnecessary and potentially very harmful. A bit of consideration for others would not go amiss.
Infection is part and parcel of life unfortunately, viruses are endemic and never going away. So its up to you and anyone else to decide how you want to live with that, and I respect whatever choices you make.
However I think we need to get over this notion of thinking that anyone who has Covid is "sick". Simply having a virus doesn't mean you are sick. If all you have is a cough, and a virus that is endemic in the community anyway, then I don't respectfully don't really consider that to be particularly "sick".
I’m now sure I have covid. Suddenly got a headache and feeling tired. Thanks everyone
That's just the side effects of reading some HYUFD posts on Scottish Independence.
The weird thing is, in his relentless mule-headed way, @HYUFD is largely right about Sindyref. No UK Tory government will allow it, they will use the generation argument until it is exhausted (after a generation)
I doubt even a Labour govt would do it, tho they might be willing to compromise more
However @HYUFD’s talents for persuasion somewhat let him down when he expresses this
Nobody is here to persaude anybody about anything. Or if they are, they are wasting their fucking time. Come for the pedantry, stay for the piss taking. That's about it.
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
It's none of the old cow's business is it? She doesn't get to interfere in the political process of the country.
The idea that HMQ would refuse an election request is for the gullible anti-Borisite Tory birds.
Comments
It's very low cost and can be a great way to spend time. Plus free tutorials are abundant on Youtube.
But I will feel a bit sorry for Labour if they do win next time. It is likely to be a bad one to win and a good one to lose.
For a practical suggestion - Hauxley nature reserve was free entry and worth every penny iirc.
Various members of my family suffer anxiety and in my eldest son's case severe and prolonged PTSD and anxiety but in his case at long last he is coming out of it and enjoying walks and nature and rediscovering his life
Please seek advice from your GP and we are all here to support you as best we can
You are not alone
All the very best
You put a valid arguement forward. You have just trashed your own argument and still haven't said where the 1/3 came from.
By doing this you lose support from people like me who are open minded on the issue.
Of course, it seems the SNP have jettisoned The Settled Will notion in favour of an attempt to eek out a narrow majority for independence. I also think this is risky, ala Brexit. You don't want to start your political project with half the country against you.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/30/mps-should-not-bring-babies-into-commons-says-cross-party-review
Anmyway off now to take my own advice and have the daily walk.
My take was: covid is here to stay, NIP are no longer appropriate, vulnerable people can and should take extra precautions, others should take extra care if they are likely to come into close contact with the vulnerable.
That last point alone, means health workers need to remain cautious.
If that costs the NHS more, so be it - health is priceless - tax rich bastards like @BartholomewRoberts (and me, and many of us on here) to pay for it.
Edit : yes it was @Andy_Cooke starting here: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3989488#Comment_3989488
The reality is, that it helped. Whether it's just endorphins, whether it's my blood pressure lowering, or whether it gave me the space and time to honestly appraise my problems, I don't know. For me it anchors me in the present. Whatever is happening isn't happening then and there. While I don't think it solved my problems, it did help me cope with them.
If you LDs and Labour get in government after the next general election and allow an indyref2 it will be up to you to win it and your fault if you lose it having allowed one before a generation since 2014
I was on my own in a 1 bed flat in Camden, the British winter was particularly cruel that year - just cold enough and wet enough (apparently forever) to make even a walk in the park seriously unpleasant, on many days (and that for just one hour with one friend etc etc etc)
The gym was my last place to do serious exercise outside my own home (somehow important) and I am sure the absence of it contributed to my horrific depression at that time. Exercise REALLY helps, for all the reasons you say. I don’t understand people who dismiss it as “not really tackling the problem” or a “phoney boost to serotonin” or whatever. Who the heck cares. It WORKS
https://www.apa.org/topics/exercise-fitness/stress
If people are too sick to work then they shouldn't be working, whether that is Covid, Influenza, the Common Cold or A.N. Other virus that is making them sick.
If people are fit and healthy, but have a line on a test, then they aren't too sick to work.
Hospital acquired infections are a major killer of people, I agree, which is why washing your hands, wearing masks etc are a common requirement in hospitals are they not?
Viruses spread, people and animals carry viruses. There are more viruses on the planet, than there are stars in the universe. On average approximately one in six people are carrying the common cold at any point of time, and Coronavirus may be as prevalent as the common cold in the future, we need to live with it.
Simply carrying a virus should not be a reason not to work, being genuinely too sick to work (regardless of which virus is making you sick) is a different matter.
Going to the voters and letting the voters decide is the polar opposite of what Trump wanted. Its also not going to see the voters say "give Boris another term" right now, so it isn't going to happen either.
HYUFD is being delusional with his own flights of fantasy. Boris with a 76 seat majority would have to be insane to call an election while so far behind in the polls, and if he did then Keir Starmer would be next Prime Minister - and deservedly so!
Keir Starmer wouldn't be able to believe his own luck if Boris was stupid enough to call an election at the minute. He'd be utterly up for the election and would be in front of the cameras as fast as he could be to say that he is looking forward to the election and that the country deserves a change of government. The media would be instantly in election mode.
The Tories would be hammered, and deservedly so. Forget a hung Parliament, a Labour majority would be my most likely expectation if Boris was so stupid as to do that now.
Which is why it is simply never going to happen. Its even less likely than Brown calling an election in 2007. Only a fantasist would be suggesting it.
Sometimes an offer of help is of use by itself.
At best you can say they are very badly written, at worst you could say... well.
The majority of exceptions are only as an affirmative defence. That is, after performing the abortion to save the life of the mother the doctor can still be sued/prosecuted (depending on whether the law is one of the Texas style bounty laws or full on criminalisation) and then the doctor has to go to court and convince the judge/jury that the mother's life was sufficiently at immediate risk to win the defence.
While some states like Alabama explicitly exclude ectopic pregnancies from what is considered abortion other states do not.
I realise that we have to live with it. But I do think that if you have an infectious disease going to to work and passing it onto colleagues and customers etc is a bit off, no?
Does it have a cause? Or is it a random visit from the Blue Meanies?
The random ones can be worse, in ways, because you can’t even point to the culprit
coalition of chaos ticket than surviving another VONC amongst Tory MPs he will do
Hopefully PB can help in a small way by providing some light relief and some online company.
I have no settled view re Scottish Independence (see my post in reply to @Casino_Royale) and I agree with you that if turnout is below a certain level that is important (It is why I don't vote in Police Commissioner elections).
You brought up the issue of it being invalid if the turnout was too low due to a boycott (with which I would agree) so I simply asked you what would be your measure of too low. You then seemed to (unnecessarily) trash your own argument (why?).
I also asked you where a figure you quoted came from because it did not appear obvious from the previous post you made. And for some bizarre reason you won't tell me.
Do you want support for your cause or not, because I am open minded to be persuaded.
FFS. I know this is the new normal but I hate the new normal
So the Lascelles Principles would apply I assume, but they're extremely tightly restricted.
It worth noting that the second of the original Lascelles requirements was apparently dropped by 1994, so the revised Lascelles Principles would be
(1) the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job; (2) a General Election would be detrimental to the national economy; (3) he could rely on finding another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons.
You are therefore seeing State legislatures crafting laws which are going to be pretty unpopular.
Nowadays doing that in an office environment is getting frowned upon (as they can work from home) but that isn't true elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the issue seems to be that being batshit crazy isn't that unpopular Stateside.
I’m somewhere where the testing and mask-wearing never went away, and our daily cases are 5x what they were a month ago.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/health/2022/06/29/uae-records-1769-new-covid-19-cases-and-two-deaths/
There is no legal, or in my view ethical, reason not to go to work with any virus. If all it is, is a cough, then people have forever gone to work with coughs.
We need to start treating Covid like we do the common cold, which its almost as prevalent as. If your son's colleague had the common cold would you object to him being at work with a cough?
If you want them to do something, you have to legally force them
Look at the tubes - we'd like you to wear a mask, 90% don't. You must wear a mask, 90% do.
To me its a good thing that 90% are choosing not to wear a mask, it means they're making their own choice that they want - and the other 10% are making their own choice that they want. We should respect everyone else's right to decide and the 10% should not force their choice upon the 90% . . . but quite equally the 90% should not force their choice on the 10% either.
Nothing says “I’m not guilty” like evading an inquiry by committing political suicide and taking the entire party down with you.
https://twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1542427732419776512
One other thing. If a Prime Minister with a majority of almost 80 bowled up to the palace only half-way through their term, with a parliamentary standards committee hot on their heels, and asked for an election I think the Queen might have something to say about it.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1542416142341488640
‘Please ignore the hemorrhaging from my eyeballs, it’s nothing.’
But its an utterly delusional suggestion. There is no way that Boris would commit political suicide this way and want to be humiliated at an election. It'd be easier for him to just resign instead.
But when I am back in the Lakes if you fancy a scoot round the unknown but v beautiful bit of the Lakes with one of the finest beaches in England let me know.
Or are you suggesting that if you were hemorrhaging from your eyeballs, but there was no line on your test, you'd go into work as normal?
Only zero covid headbangers are still so foolish as to think preventing infections of Covid is possible, you might as well try to hold back the tide with your fingers.
Treat the virulence, not the infectiousness. Treat symptoms, not infections.
But since this appears to be about precisely one MP, it is hard to care whether they change the rules or not. Stella Creasy used to be on the long list for future Labour leader, and was runner-up in the Deputy Leadership election. Unlike most backbenchers, let alone Opposition backbenchers she had achieved something solid with her campaign against payday lending and also on NI abortion rights. Now?
If someone had a tubercular cough, we wouldn't want them at work, would we?
What Son was cross about was being lied to by his colleague. Plus being put at risk himself and putting me at risk.
Plus this - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/self-isolation-and-treatment/when-to-self-isolate-and-what-to-do/ - is the NHS advice which suggests that staying at home is the right thing to do. In a customer facing business you really don't want staff coughing all over customers.
I am here open to persuasion. Go on persuade me.
What is the point of arguing with me when I am not arguing back. I am not disagreeing with you. This is like a Monty Python sketch.
Convince me of your argument. You stated an opinion and a fact (I assume it was a fact). I am open minded to that opinion and asked for more info and an expansion of your opinion.
Umpteen posts later I have got nothing from you but a very defensive attitude as If I was disagreeing with you. I am not.
Is this the comprehension issue again?
I do not agree that it is wrong to be at work when you have Covid though - and advice is just advice, not a requirement.
If people are too sick to work they shouldn't be working whether that's a common cold or covid, but if they're not too sick to work and its just an intermittent cough and they wash their hands etc after coughing then that's not a problem in my eyes - but you should be honest about it.
In the manifestly absurd scenario posited by HYFUD, the Queen only announces the date of dissolution; it doesn't take effect at once. So should two thirds of the Cabinet (whatever) denounce the rogue act and Tory MPs vote No Confidence, Her Majesty can simply change her mind and a new government formed.
But, really!
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1542434087406895104
After Covid's emergence they wouldn't be able to do that. I mean they can't because they are dead, killed by Covid, but even if they were alive they would completely locked out of society because of the massive, massive, massive difference in infectivity.
But I do feel that people ought to think a bit harder about whether it makes sense to come into work when they are sick. The whole "I'm a hero by struggling in and spreading disease around the place" culture is very bad manners, quite unnecessary and potentially very harmful. A bit of consideration for others would not go amiss.
I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but I made a personal breakthrough when I realised that the core of depression was the drive to inertia (i.e: Don't do anything, there's no point to doing anything, just be inert). And that, with the way that things can mentally self-reinforce, it's often being inert that generates more of the depressive drive to further inertia. As well as frustration and stress of course - which generate adrenaline that can't be burned off, because physical action doesn't help address the root causes of that frustration and stress.
Doing almost anything can break that rut and self-reinforce away from it. And can start to burn off the various hormones around it, further self-reinforcing.
As I say, it might just be me, but in my experience, doing something, preferably physical, can really help. And don't hesitate to reach out to others - that depression is also purely internally focused (so external people can damage the core of the depression).
The zero covid idea is dead and buried precisely because of the massive difference in infectivity you cited.
If people are "locked out of society" then they need to think why? Is it because they're waiting until Covid has gone, because that's never going to happen, anymore than waiting for the common cold to be gone.
Learning to live with covid means learning to live with endemic covid, not learning to make covid go away.
I doubt even a Labour govt would do it, tho they might be willing to compromise more
However @HYUFD’s talents for persuasion somewhat let him down when he expresses this
Planning love nests will get rid of it.
Off you go .....
However I think we need to get over this notion of thinking that anyone who has Covid is "sick". Simply having a virus doesn't mean you are sick. If all you have is a cough, and a virus that is endemic in the community anyway, then I don't respectfully don't really consider that to be particularly "sick".