The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
Re government departments and phone access. I wrote to the OAP service about a change of address. Having received no response I spent an hour calling them to be told they had the change but never reply to such letters! There is no website to access the annual review statement - the one thing I need for my Spanish tax return each year so if it does not arrive by post it's more hours on the phone. They told me they're piloting one. It's like talking to people from another planet and civil servants say they're overworked and underpaid. Quite extraordinary state of affairs in 2022.
Quite. They don't issue P60s for the state pension, and their accounting is different from HMRC - though HMRC accept the latter, it's different from other HMRC income (which is recorded on the day of receipt).
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
Looks like the government’s voter ID plans might be about to collapse.
Good. They amount to little more than a fascist form of voter suppression pretending to be a much needed cure for an ailment that doesn’t actually exist.
Looks like the government’s voter ID plans might be about to collapse.
What is the basis for this optimistic assessment?
Turns out there are large chunks of the country who don’t actually have ready access to ID, the government looks like it has conceded to an independent assessment.
I don't. I don't drive and my passport has expired. It didn't prevent me getting an enhanced DBS. ID suitable for that ought to be sufficient to cast a vote.
It would be a shame if partisan campaigners against securing the ballot get their way against the Electoral Commission's recommendations. Given that my understanding is that the current plans mirror the system in Northern Ireland and include the issuing of a free voter ID as part of the registration process, this shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle.
There's the rub though. Who will issue it? Where? How long will it take? What ID will be needed to get ID? Simply saying "Councils" does not cut it. It takes 10 weeks for a passport. How long for free ID?
What will a council require before issuing said ID - because I beat they will end up requiring a document that many people don't have.
Doesn't seem to be a problem in Northern Ireland.
Any evidence to back up that assertion?
I can't find any significant movement in Northern Ireland to abolish voter ID there.
Not the question I was asking - you said that in NI no one has difficulty getting the photo ID required to vote there.
Please provide the evidence you have that no one has difficultly getting appropriate photo ID.
Also it would be worth knowing the cost by council issued photo ID because I bet the council expect the voter to provide the photograph and that costs money.
No, I said that people not having the necessary documents to get the free voter ID card doesn't seem to be a problem in Northern Ireland - do you have evidence against that point rather than the point you thought I was making?
You basically need to travel to Belfast or spend a few pounds to get a photo and jump through some hoops.
I can see why many don’t bother (which is after all the Tories plan).
That's the proof of the pudding.
At one extreme, there's a model of voter ID where councils can do assertive outreach, making sure that everyone has the ID they need well in advance. Going door-to-door if that's what it takes to make sure everyone has ID to give us a reliable election.
At the other, there's a model where councils have a "get your ID" facility that is open on the fifth Wednesday of every month between 10.30 and 12.00, in the council basement behind a photocopied sign saying "Beware of the Suella Braverman."
Looks like the government’s voter ID plans might be about to collapse.
Good. They amount to little more than a fascist form of voter suppression pretending to be a much needed cure for an ailment that doesn’t actually exist.
Looks like the government’s voter ID plans might be about to collapse.
What is the basis for this optimistic assessment?
Turns out there are large chunks of the country who don’t actually have ready access to ID, the government looks like it has conceded to an independent assessment.
I don't. I don't drive and my passport has expired. It didn't prevent me getting an enhanced DBS. ID suitable for that ought to be sufficient to cast a vote.
It would be a shame if partisan campaigners against securing the ballot get their way against the Electoral Commission's recommendations. Given that my understanding is that the current plans mirror the system in Northern Ireland and include the issuing of a free voter ID as part of the registration process, this shouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle.
There's the rub though. Who will issue it? Where? How long will it take? What ID will be needed to get ID? Simply saying "Councils" does not cut it. It takes 10 weeks for a passport. How long for free ID?
What will a council require before issuing said ID - because I beat they will end up requiring a document that many people don't have.
Doesn't seem to be a problem in Northern Ireland.
Any evidence to back up that assertion?
I can't find any significant movement in Northern Ireland to abolish voter ID there.
Not the question I was asking - you said that in NI no one has difficulty getting the photo ID required to vote there.
Please provide the evidence you have that no one has difficultly getting appropriate photo ID.
Also it would be worth knowing the cost by council issued photo ID because I bet the council expect the voter to provide the photograph and that costs money.
No, I said that people not having the necessary documents to get the free voter ID card doesn't seem to be a problem in Northern Ireland - do you have evidence against that point rather than the point you thought I was making?
The problem in NI as I understand is once you have the ID you don't necessarily need the person in order to vote. Et voila vote harvesting.
The vote early vote often approach was why Northern Ireland has photo Id requirements - that issue doesn’t exist in the rest of the UK where the known examples of electoral fraud relate to postal voting.
And postal voting is the one thing that isn’t changing herev
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
Bringing down a Labour government and putting the Tories in. Classic SNP. SKS will call that bluff. It’s a win win.
Absolutely the most important thing Sunak and Hunt have done since taking over is getting the markets to treat the UK like a normal economy again. Here is pound vs dollar and euro - as @GeorgeTrefgarne points out, former now highest since June...
What a shitstain of a human being he is. This is why we are in a very dangerous moment in human history, where a handful of multibillionaires are controlling access to information, to logistics chains, to consumer goods. Any government worth its salt needs to break their power.
Absolutely the most important thing Sunak and Hunt have done since taking over is getting the markets to treat the UK like a normal economy again. Here is pound vs dollar and euro - as @GeorgeTrefgarne points out, former now highest since June...
Many unionists welcomed last month’s judgment from the Supreme Court that the Scottish parliament does not have the authority to hold a ballot on independence. However, that pronouncement has not done unionism itself any favours.
… just saying no to another ballot does not look like a viable long-term strategy.
No referendum Ref2 with about 52% for independence Ref2 with about 52% for remain in UK.
All of them are horrible and divisive in wonderfully different ways. None promises a happy ending.
However, two are democratic outcomes, one is a fascist outcome.
As Winston Churchill said:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
You had your referendum. You lost. Get over it. Scottish independence is also not necessarily democratic even if you had won. There are very large parts of Scotland that don't want it, indeed the concentration of nationalism in the referendum was all in tiny areas. Those that don't want it would no doubt be conveniently ignored by you. Should they declare independence from the new "independent" Scotland? All nations are artificial constructions. If the UK can be broken up then so can Scotland.
How about the Nats can keep Glasgow, while the nice bits can remain in the UK? All the whingeing Nats can move there and fence themselves in from the rest of the world. I am sure it won't be long before they will all fight amongst themselves about the purity of their Scottishness.
Cannot conceal your nasty personna, pompous bigoted racist English Nationalist, crawl back under your rock where you belong. A scumbag.
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
Another decent poll for the Conservatives again today - who would have thought this time three years ago we'd be hailing a 13-point Labour lead as a good poll for the Conservatives? The descent into mid-term was rapid and very steep but we know Governments sometimes can and do recover and polls like this prevent complacency in the Labour camp.
As always, the cross tabs and sub samples offer some clues. Labour lead by 6 among men and 21 among women. Among those aged 65+, the Conservatives lead 54-26 so that's a 9.5% swing since 2019 compared with 13% in the headline figures so the decline in Labour lead looks like a recovery in Conservative support among older voters on first look.
The Conservatives are retaining 71% of their 2019 vote and losing only 17% to Labour which again suggests a move back. The Tories also get 13% of 2019 LD voters which doesn't chime with other polls. In London, Labour leads 65-17 and in Scotland it's 40% SNP, 36% Labour, 12% LD and 12% Conservative (stop giggling in the cheap seats).
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
Shame she didn’t care a fig for the Grenfell deaths.
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
Shame she didn’t care a fig for the Grenfell deaths.
And you make this outrageous slur based on what evidence?
Another decent poll for the Conservatives again today - who would have thought this time three years ago we'd be hailing a 13-point Labour lead as a good poll for the Conservatives? The descent into mid-term was rapid and very steep but we know Governments sometimes can and do recover and polls like this prevent complacency in the Labour camp.
As always, the cross tabs and sub samples offer some clues. Labour lead by 6 among men and 21 among women. Among those aged 65+, the Conservatives lead 54-26 so that's a 9.5% swing since 2019 compared with 13% in the headline figures so the decline in Labour lead looks like a recovery in Conservative support among older voters on first look.
The Conservatives are retaining 71% of their 2019 vote and losing only 17% to Labour which again suggests a move back. The Tories also get 13% of 2019 LD voters which doesn't chime with other polls. In London, Labour leads 65-17 and in Scotland it's 40% SNP, 36% Labour, 12% LD and 12% Conservative (stop giggling in the cheap seats).
- “As always, the cross tabs and sub samples offer some clues.”
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
Shame she didn’t care a fig for the Grenfell deaths.
That's unlikely to be true though is it? There are very valid criticisms of May, and that's not one of them.
On a complete aside, it looks as though the negotiations in Denmark around the formation of a new Government are concluding.
The election was held on November 1st so that's 6 weeks (and we quibble if there isn't a new Government within six hours).
The Red/Blue Block status quo has been shattered. Social Democrat Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen will head a new Coalition with Venstre and the Moderates which will command a majority in the Folketing.
It remains to be seen whether any other parties will offer to support the new Government but this will lead to a re-alignment of Danish politics with perhaps a new 3-block system forming with the centrists gathering round the new Government and opposition blocs on both Right and Left. On the Right, the Liberal Alliance, Denmark Democrats and Conservatives will be fighting to take the leadership of the centre-right and right Opposition.
On the Left, the Socialist Folkeparti look set to become the new leading party.
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Seems weird only now that things might crater now, since his actions have been no different, but hopefully it's one of those cumulative effect scenarios, where just one final straw broke the back of his support.
Wanting his policies to continue is a red herring, since people might say that sort of thing, but its unclear which policies they mean, or they might have a skewed view of what was happening anyway, and if they like the new person they'll back them even if they depart from the former candidate.
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
Shame she didn’t care a fig for the Grenfell deaths.
And you make this outrageous slur based on what evidence?
She's English and he doesn't like her as a result?
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
Shame she didn’t care a fig for the Grenfell deaths.
And you make this outrageous slur based on what evidence?
She's English and he doesn't like her as a result?
So a Scottish Nationalim is all about love of one’s own country and not hatred of England? Did I get that right?
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Not encouraging really. I mean, at least with Trump his laziness, lack of intellect, erratic attention span and self-aggrandising actions meant there was a limit to the damage. Imagine how dangerous the Capitol riots could have been if masterminded by somebody with a functioning brain rather than a thin-skinned, not over-bright narcissist.
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
Shame she didn’t care a fig for the Grenfell deaths.
And you make this outrageous slur based on what evidence?
She's English and he doesn't like her as a result?
So a Scottish Nationalim is all about love of one’s own country and not hatred of England? Did I get that right?
Well, it can be. And there are plenty of sane and reasonable Scottish Nationalists, including the likes of Carnyx, or Alistair, or even TUD on many subjects.
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
Seems weird only now that things might crater now, since his actions have been no different, but hopefully it's one of those cumulative effect scenarios, where just one final straw broke the back of his support.
Wanting his policies to continue is a red herring, since people might say that sort of thing, but its unclear which policies they mean, or they might have a skewed view of what was happening anyway, and if they like the new person they'll back them even if they depart from the former candidate.
I think what has changed is not what Republicans fundamentally think of Trump's policies and style, but the inescapable fact that the mid-terms were deeply sub-optimal and the buck stops at Mar-a-Lago. The GOP went backwards in the Senate and won the House only barely. And it was patchy, so the candidates who clearly screwed it up for them were principally Trump's hand-picked favourites whereas De Santis (and some others more distant from Trump) personally looked like winners.
Georgia to cap it off was a really telling - every state-wide Republican did very well, very much including Kemp and even Raffensperger who had been repeatedly attacked by Trump... the only exception was Trump's close personal friend and personal pick for the Senate. Same pattern in some other states, but Georgia was particularly striking and highlighted by the run-off.
So he looks like a LOSER in a way that he wriggled out of by flat denial in 2020 but is really hard to do today.
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
That's the kind of talk that delivered you a Johnson landslide.
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
Peter Walton talking ****cks on ITV. I'm with Neville, Wright and Keane.
Just read on the Birmingham (Post?) that Stevie G. is in the frame to replace Southgate. What is this madness?
There isn’t a vacancy is there?
Southgate is thinking about quitting.
Is that any more than just him not confirming he is staying yet? There’s no hurry - next game isn’t till March, and then against a bunch of cloggers. (Italy)
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
More importantly, the MAGA crowd are going to make it very hard for anyone to beat Trump to the nomination.
De Santis is probably getting some never Trump support right now, but I don't think he's got the will right now - he's young enough to easily get another chance rather than go now.
Ministers have been accused of writing a “blank cheque” for Boris Johnson’s legal bills, as it emerged taxpayer-funded support was being extended to help defend him against claims he misled parliament over Partygate.
With just days left until a contract expires with the law firm Peters and Peters, which Johnson and the government have relied on to disparage an investigation by the privileges committee, the Guardian has learned the Cabinet Office intends to renew it.
The extension could be for up to six months given the investigation’s slow progress and was likely to be signed off without a new tender process, sources said.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
Love The IT Crowd.
In a parallel universe I turn into Moss.
You should call 01189998819991197253.
And I typed that without Googling it (correctly, I think...).
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
On a complete aside, it looks as though the negotiations in Denmark around the formation of a new Government are concluding.
The election was held on November 1st so that's 6 weeks (and we quibble if there isn't a new Government within six hours).
The Red/Blue Block status quo has been shattered. Social Democrat Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen will head a new Coalition with Venstre and the Moderates which will command a majority in the Folketing.
It remains to be seen whether any other parties will offer to support the new Government but this will lead to a re-alignment of Danish politics with perhaps a new 3-block system forming with the centrists gathering round the new Government and opposition blocs on both Right and Left. On the Right, the Liberal Alliance, Denmark Democrats and Conservatives will be fighting to take the leadership of the centre-right and right Opposition.
On the Left, the Socialist Folkeparti look set to become the new leading party.
Thanks for the update - I've lost track of Danish politics recently and it's always interesting.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
This is such a stupid response, and indeed it’s an attitude that drives Scots toward independence.
The issue is that England has rights as well (as does the UK).
Constant uncertainty about whether Scotland will leave is disruptive
The rules are clear: it is up to Westminster. The Sindy advocates need to convince Westminster that there is a strong likelihood of a different result - but it’s meaningless to say “you need to achieve X seats or Y in z polls in a row”. Let’s take the latter - say the metric was 60% support in polls for 12 months. And on Dec 31 you get a poll with 59% support. That has failed “the test” but the reality is there is still a good chance of a different result.
I would say that the Scottish government can request a referendum within 6 months of being elected to take place within 12 months (no gaming the timing) provided that the last referendum was no less than 20 years ago (to protect again disruption). There should then be a free vote in Westminster to approve but I’d assume that would be a formality if the criteria are met.
What a shitstain of a human being he is. This is why we are in a very dangerous moment in human history, where a handful of multibillionaires are controlling access to information, to logistics chains, to consumer goods. Any government worth its salt needs to break their power.
It’s probably listed under “Russia (former Ukraine)”
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
More importantly, the MAGA crowd are going to make it very hard for anyone to beat Trump to the nomination.
De Santis is probably getting some never Trump support right now, but I don't think he's got the will right now - he's young enough to easily get another chance rather than go now.
It's a huge and common mistake not to cash in when your stock is high.
He's a capable politician who's had some luck. One botched natural disaster, one grim scandal involving a close associate, and he's a punchline. "Whatever happened to Ron De Wotsits?"
Chances don't wait for you in politics - you wait for chances.
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
More importantly, the MAGA crowd are going to make it very hard for anyone to beat Trump to the nomination.
De Santis is probably getting some never Trump support right now, but I don't think he's got the will right now - he's young enough to easily get another chance rather than go now.
Politicians never “wait for next time”. If they have the shot they take it. Who knows what happens in the next 4 years
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Refusing a referendum when it's voted for is a maximalist demand.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
This is such a stupid response, and indeed it’s an attitude that drives Scots toward independence.
The issue is that England has rights as well (as does the UK).
Constant uncertainty about whether Scotland will leave is disruptive
The rules are clear: it is up to Westminster. The Sindy advocates need to convince Westminster that there is a strong likelihood of a different result - but it’s meaningless to say “you need to achieve X seats or Y in z polls in a row”. Let’s take the latter - say the metric was 60% support in polls for 12 months. And on Dec 31 you get a poll with 59% support. That has failed “the test” but the reality is there is still a good chance of a different result.
I would say that the Scottish government can request a referendum within 6 months of being elected to take place within 12 months (no gaming the timing) provided that the last referendum was no less than 20 years ago (to protect again disruption). There should then be a free vote in Westminster to approve but I’d assume that would be a formality if the criteria are met.
I am very Unionist.
Of course England (and the rest of the UK) have rights, and I’ve written before on how those rights ought to be protected, similar to how you have.
But that needs spelling out as the default message is that Scotland has no simply no route to independence.
The British government’s position here is provocative.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Refusing a referendum when it's voted for is a maximalist demand.
Ignoring @HYUFD Paisley* inspired position, the case hadn’t been made.
Holyrood elections are irrelevant because it’s outwith its mandate
“When you compound [the cost of Brexit] onto the other problems that Britain currently has, it’s devastating. It has resulted in Britain becoming the poorest country, as far as growth is concerned, almost in the world. It’s really sad to see.”
It's a reference to Canada's introduction of assisted dying on demand, which has lead to some stories about the long term disabled being "encouraged" to think about taking that option by doctors:
I saw rthe latest Top Gear/Grand Tour last night. Scandi Flick
It is SUPERB. It's their funniest and most likeable for many years, with some marvellous physical comedy and a real sense of being unscripted (unlike recent versions). You will see what I mean
I saw rthe latest Top Gear/Grand Tour last night. Scandi Flick
It is SUPERB. It's their funniest and most likeable for many years, with some marvellous physical comedy and a real sense of being unscripted (unlike recent versions). You will see what I mean
Three years off has suited them. Must watch!
Where’ve you been? That came out months ago. But yes, it is good. Cracking smash too.
Not a bad bit of business by City for £15m (£22m if all the add-ons come into play). Bringing in him and Haaland and moving on Sterling and Jesus looks to have paid off handsomely.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
“When you compound [the cost of Brexit] onto the other problems that Britain currently has, it’s devastating. It has resulted in Britain becoming the poorest country, as far as growth is concerned, almost in the world. It’s really sad to see.”
I saw rthe latest Top Gear/Grand Tour last night. Scandi Flick
It is SUPERB. It's their funniest and most likeable for many years, with some marvellous physical comedy and a real sense of being unscripted (unlike recent versions). You will see what I mean
Three years off has suited them. Must watch!
Where’ve you been? That came out months ago. But yes, it is good. Cracking smash too.
I must have been in the States/Iceland
It's brilliant. A couple of the funniest sequences they've ever filmed
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
This is such a stupid response, and indeed it’s an attitude that drives Scots toward independence.
The issue is that England has rights as well (as does the UK).
Constant uncertainty about whether Scotland will leave is disruptive
The rules are clear: it is up to Westminster. The Sindy advocates need to convince Westminster that there is a strong likelihood of a different result - but it’s meaningless to say “you need to achieve X seats or Y in z polls in a row”. Let’s take the latter - say the metric was 60% support in polls for 12 months. And on Dec 31 you get a poll with 59% support. That has failed “the test” but the reality is there is still a good chance of a different result.
I would say that the Scottish government can request a referendum within 6 months of being elected to take place within 12 months (no gaming the timing) provided that the last referendum was no less than 20 years ago (to protect again disruption). There should then be a free vote in Westminster to approve but I’d assume that would be a formality if the criteria are met.
I am very Unionist.
Of course England (and the rest of the UK) have rights, and I’ve written before on how those rights ought to be protected, similar to how you have.
But that needs spelling out as the default message is that Scotland has no simply no route to independence.
The British government’s position here is provocative.
I do tend to agree on this. There is a a natural frustration that after a fairly recent vote, the losing side is constantly asking for another one. Not unlike Brexit. But arguably the Brexit vote changed the situation for Scots in a way that was not expected in 2014. A new vote is not unreasonable. And it is hard to see how a majority in Westminster could b3 found to vote for such a referendum. Unless of course the SNP were prepared to create an ENP - similar policies, in favour of Scottish Independence but running in England. Of course what May ultimately happen is a hung Westminster parliament and the price of support becomes clear…
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You are now & will be in the future completely dependent on a continuing supply of educated sprogs for everything you rely on to have any kind of life. Water, roads, the staff that run the nursing home that will keep you in some kind of comfort in your old age, communication networks, farming, the engineering to supply the tools that make all this happen, and on and on and on. All of it relies either on the actual work of educated sprogs or the ability of said educated sprogs to trade their labour for the imports that you rely on.
Paying taxes to ensure that supply remains in place seems entirely reasonable, whether one has sprogs or not.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You do know that, if you don't vote, someone wins anyway?
Honestly, I can get abstention on the basis of not giving a sh1t. But the sort of "reasoned" abstention, by people who have views but essentially want a free pass to criticise whoever wins, gets on my nerves.
Just extract the fence post from your arse and make a choice, because a choice will be made with or without you.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You are now & will be in the future completely dependent on a continuing supply of educated sprogs for everything you rely on to have any kind of life. Water, roads, the staff that run the nursing home that will keep you in some kind of comfort in your old age, communication networks, farming, the engineering to supply the tools that make all this happen, and on and on and on. All of it relies either on the actual work of educated sprogs or the ability of said educated sprogs to trade their labour for the imports that you rely on.
Paying taxes to ensure that supply remains in place seems entirely reasonable, whether one has sprogs or not.
Unfortunately, the state system doesn't seem to educate them very well. Increasing pressure on that system by making private education unaffordable for a vast swathe of the middle classes doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
If Labour want to end private schools, the best way to do it is to raise state schools to a standard where people no longer feel it's necessary to educate their kids privately.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Refusing a referendum when it's voted for is a maximalist demand.
Ignoring @HYUFD Paisley* inspired position, the case hadn’t been made.
Holyrood elections are irrelevant because it’s outwith its mandate
* not the place
Massive majority in Scottish constituencies at Westminster, *on exactly the same metric as the ruling party uses to justify its position by FPTP, though on a different geographical basis (well, of course).
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You do know that, if you don't vote, someone wins anyway?
Honestly, I can get abstention on the basis of not giving a sh1t. But the sort of "reasoned" abstention, by people who have views but essentially want a free pass to criticise whoever wins, gets on my nerves.
Just extract the fence post from your arse and make a choice, because a choice will be made with or without you.
And there are more than two candidates in every seat, it is not obligatory to vote for Con or Labour.
Not a bad bit of business by City for £15m (£22m if all the add-ons come into play). Bringing in him and Haaland and moving on Sterling and Jesus looks to have paid off handsomely.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
Why should you be able to buy your children better life opportunities than others? Purely because you have money. Nothing more. And you create sink schools by your actions so you make the odds all the more weighted in your favour. You lay waste to the talents and abilities of the children whose parents cannot afford to buy their children this kind of advantage. And you ferment and enhance inter generational poverty. And so it carries on and before you know it only those children whose parents can afford it achieve.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You are now & will be in the future completely dependent on a continuing supply of educated sprogs for everything you rely on to have any kind of life. Water, roads, the staff that run the nursing home that will keep you in some kind of comfort in your old age, communication networks, farming, the engineering to supply the tools that make all this happen, and on and on and on. All of it relies either on the actual work of educated sprogs or the ability of said educated sprogs to trade their labour for the imports that you rely on.
Paying taxes to ensure that supply remains in place seems entirely reasonable, whether one has sprogs or not.
Given that private schools only cater for 6-7% of sprogs in the UK, and indeed make quite a feature rather than a bug of it, one'd not get one's bum wiped very far if one were to rely on those schools' products.
“When you compound [the cost of Brexit] onto the other problems that Britain currently has, it’s devastating. It has resulted in Britain becoming the poorest country, as far as growth is concerned, almost in the world. It’s really sad to see.”
If he can see it, and say it, it really shouldn’t be beyond opposition politicians. It’s really about time the Tories were called to account for this disaster.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You are now & will be in the future completely dependent on a continuing supply of educated sprogs for everything you rely on to have any kind of life. Water, roads, the staff that run the nursing home that will keep you in some kind of comfort in your old age, communication networks, farming, the engineering to supply the tools that make all this happen, and on and on and on. All of it relies either on the actual work of educated sprogs or the ability of said educated sprogs to trade their labour for the imports that you rely on.
Paying taxes to ensure that supply remains in place seems entirely reasonable, whether one has sprogs or not.
Unfortunately, the state system doesn't seem to educate them very well. Increasing pressure on that system by making private education unaffordable for a vast swathe of the middle classes doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
If Labour want to end private schools, the best way to do it is to raise state schools to a standard where people no longer feel it's necessary to educate their kids privately.
Only 8% of kids are in private education. If that halved (unlikely) because of Charitable status going*, would 4% constitute "vast swathes of the middle classes"?
* a lot of talk yesterday about dodgy charities scamming people, why aren't private schools considered part of this?
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You are now & will be in the future completely dependent on a continuing supply of educated sprogs for everything you rely on to have any kind of life. Water, roads, the staff that run the nursing home that will keep you in some kind of comfort in your old age, communication networks, farming, the engineering to supply the tools that make all this happen, and on and on and on. All of it relies either on the actual work of educated sprogs or the ability of said educated sprogs to trade their labour for the imports that you rely on.
Paying taxes to ensure that supply remains in place seems entirely reasonable, whether one has sprogs or not.
Unfortunately, the state system doesn't seem to educate them very well. Increasing pressure on that system by making private education unaffordable for a vast swathe of the middle classes doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
If Labour want to end private schools, the best way to do it is to raise state schools to a standard where people no longer feel it's necessary to educate their kids privately.
Only 8% of kids are in private education. If that halved (unlikely) because of Charitable status going*, would 4% constitute "vast swathes of the middle classes"?
* a lot of talk yesterday about dodgy charities scamming people, why aren't private schools considered part of this?
Knock a bit off because some of those schools now cater heavily for the overseas market. Nowt wrong with that, and it's good to meet and mix, but it doesn't help educate UK children in terms of numbers output.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Nationalists and "yes" voters aren't the same thing.
It's is true that some people with a particular view will never move an inch. But you don't need them too, or for everyone to agree to an outcome. You need enough people to agree there's been a reasonably fair process and it's time to move on. You'll always get clowns hanging about but, when the circus leaves town, they're just clowns.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
It's hardly the politics of envy to stop subsidising a sector which strengthens the link between educational outcome and parental bank balance, thus facilitating privilege and violating the principle of equal opportunities.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
It's hardly the politics of envy to stop subsidising a sector which strengthens the link between educational outcome and parental bank balance, thus facilitating privilege and violating the principle of equal opportunities.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Comments
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
At one extreme, there's a model of voter ID where councils can do assertive outreach, making sure that everyone has the ID they need well in advance. Going door-to-door if that's what it takes to make sure everyone has ID to give us a reliable election.
At the other, there's a model where councils have a "get your ID" facility that is open on the fifth Wednesday of every month between 10.30 and 12.00, in the council basement behind a photocopied sign saying "Beware of the Suella Braverman."
And postal voting is the one thing that isn’t changing herev
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1602692986571296768
https://twitter.com/United24media/status/1602641892264611840?cxt=HHwWgMC8qeqT3b0sAAAA
What a shitstain of a human being he is. This is why we are in a very dangerous moment in human history, where a handful of multibillionaires are controlling access to information, to logistics chains, to consumer goods. Any government worth its salt needs to break their power.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
https://twitter.com/PaterCory/status/1602275987907137544
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
Another decent poll for the Conservatives again today - who would have thought this time three years ago we'd be hailing a 13-point Labour lead as a good poll for the Conservatives? The descent into mid-term was rapid and very steep but we know Governments sometimes can and do recover and polls like this prevent complacency in the Labour camp.
As always, the cross tabs and sub samples offer some clues. Labour lead by 6 among men and 21 among women. Among those aged 65+, the Conservatives lead 54-26 so that's a 9.5% swing since 2019 compared with 13% in the headline figures so the decline in Labour lead looks like a recovery in Conservative support among older voters on first look.
The Conservatives are retaining 71% of their 2019 vote and losing only 17% to Labour which again suggests a move back. The Tories also get 13% of 2019 LD voters which doesn't chime with other polls. In London, Labour leads 65-17 and in Scotland it's 40% SNP, 36% Labour, 12% LD and 12% Conservative (stop giggling in the cheap seats).
I would have aimed for higher things, but I realised that would make us all Berks so I desisted.
Watch it! That’s banning talk.
DeSantis 56% (+23)
Trump 33%
.
@Suffolk_U/@USATODAY
, 374 RV, 12/7-11
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/13/trump-support-gop-2024-presidential-race-poll/10882346002/
The election was held on November 1st so that's 6 weeks (and we quibble if there isn't a new Government within six hours).
The Red/Blue Block status quo has been shattered. Social Democrat Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen will head a new Coalition with Venstre and the Moderates which will command a majority in the Folketing.
It remains to be seen whether any other parties will offer to support the new Government but this will lead to a re-alignment of Danish politics with perhaps a new 3-block system forming with the centrists gathering round the new Government and opposition blocs on both Right and Left. On the Right, the Liberal Alliance, Denmark Democrats and Conservatives will be fighting to take the leadership of the centre-right and right Opposition.
On the Left, the Socialist Folkeparti look set to become the new leading party.
Wanting his policies to continue is a red herring, since people might say that sort of thing, but its unclear which policies they mean, or they might have a skewed view of what was happening anyway, and if they like the new person they'll back them even if they depart from the former candidate.
But Stu just ain't one of them.
Georgia to cap it off was a really telling - every state-wide Republican did very well, very much including Kemp and even Raffensperger who had been repeatedly attacked by Trump... the only exception was Trump's close personal friend and personal pick for the Senate. Same pattern in some other states, but Georgia was particularly striking and highlighted by the run-off.
So he looks like a LOSER in a way that he wriggled out of by flat denial in 2020 but is really hard to do today.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/fresh-challenges-threaten-to-reverse-ukraines-judicial-reform-progress/
Just read on the Birmingham (Post?) that Stevie G. is in the frame to replace Southgate. What is this madness?
https://morningconsult.com/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker/
In a parallel universe I turn into Moss.
With just days left until a contract expires with the law firm Peters and Peters, which Johnson and the government have relied on to disparage an investigation by the privileges committee, the Guardian has learned the Cabinet Office intends to renew it.
The extension could be for up to six months given the investigation’s slow progress and was likely to be signed off without a new tender process, sources said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/13/ministers-accused-of-writing-blank-cheque-for-boris-johnson-legal-bills?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
And I typed that without Googling it (correctly, I think...).
Constant uncertainty about whether Scotland will leave is disruptive
The rules are clear: it is up to Westminster. The Sindy advocates need to convince Westminster that there is a strong likelihood of a different result - but it’s meaningless to say “you need to achieve X seats or Y in z polls in a row”. Let’s take the latter - say the metric was 60% support in polls for 12 months. And on Dec 31 you get a poll with 59% support. That has failed “the test” but the reality is there is still a good chance of a different result.
I would say that the Scottish government can request a referendum within 6 months of being elected to take place within 12 months (no gaming the timing) provided that the last referendum was no less than 20 years ago (to protect again disruption). There should then be a free vote in Westminster to approve but I’d assume that would be a formality if the criteria are met.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
He's a capable politician who's had some luck. One botched natural disaster, one grim scandal involving a close associate, and he's a punchline. "Whatever happened to Ron De Wotsits?"
Chances don't wait for you in politics - you wait for chances.
https://twitter.com/EuropeanCricket/status/1602574239235821572
Of course England (and the rest of the UK) have rights, and I’ve written before on how those rights ought to be protected, similar to how you have.
But that needs spelling out as the default message is that Scotland has no simply no route to independence.
The British government’s position here is provocative.
Holyrood elections are irrelevant because it’s outwith its mandate
* not the place
“When you compound [the cost of Brexit] onto the other problems that Britain currently has, it’s devastating. It has resulted in Britain becoming the poorest country, as far as growth is concerned, almost in the world. It’s really sad to see.”
https://twitter.com/bestforbritain/status/1602715867875315714?s=46&t=TisZDDtk2JRa7mBOzw27WA
https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11497589/amp/Paraplegic-Canadian-veteran-says-government-caseworker-offered-euthanasia.html
It is SUPERB. It's their funniest and most likeable for many years, with some marvellous physical comedy and a real sense of being unscripted (unlike recent versions). You will see what I mean
Three years off has suited them. Must watch!
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
It's brilliant. A couple of the funniest sequences they've ever filmed
Unless of course the SNP were prepared to create an ENP - similar policies, in favour of Scottish Independence but running in England.
Of course what May ultimately happen is a hung Westminster parliament and the price of support becomes clear…
Paying taxes to ensure that supply remains in place seems entirely reasonable, whether one has sprogs or not.
Honestly, I can get abstention on the basis of not giving a sh1t. But the sort of "reasoned" abstention, by people who have views but essentially want a free pass to criticise whoever wins, gets on my nerves.
Just extract the fence post from your arse and make a choice, because a choice will be made with or without you.
If Labour want to end private schools, the best way to do it is to raise state schools to a standard where people no longer feel it's necessary to educate their kids privately.
What more do you want?
Knows what he’s doing does Pep.
Go and tick the blue box. Well fucking done.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elitism-in-britain-2019
https://www.isc.co.uk/research/
[edited to change unintentional implications of pronoun used]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63959182
* a lot of talk yesterday about dodgy charities scamming people, why aren't private schools considered part of this?
GOP operative who allegedly kicked a dog hired as top aide to new congressman
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/13/gop-operative-brandon-phillips-00073724
It's is true that some people with a particular view will never move an inch. But you don't need them too, or for everyone to agree to an outcome. You need enough people to agree there's been a reasonably fair process and it's time to move on. You'll always get clowns hanging about but, when the circus leaves town, they're just clowns.