If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
There's no realistic path to another candidate (if there even is another candidate) getting a majority. You keep hinting at "possibilities", but you can't enunciate them, which leads to an obvious conclusion.
Any MSP is another candidate.
You're not considering the possibility that an election might be *forced*.
As for the possibilities - I had thought they were blindingly obvious.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
You’re missing the whole point.
The point is that being in the single market is being lauded as a benefit, even if it is a “tiny fraction”.
Which, of course, it is a benefit.
No it isn’t. Being in (some parts of) both at once is being claimed as an obvious benefit. It does not follow that being in the whole EU single market alone is better than not being in it. What part of that don’t you understand?
NB: Also - yes, a plurality of leavers would have gone for being in select parts of the single market with a veto on future laws. If you can get the EU to offer that I’ll vote for it tomorrow.
It clearly is better though. Objectively.
No, its not. Yes, there are benefits in terms of additional trade from being in the single market (vs the UK's current FTA). But those additional benefits do not outweigh the benefits of (a) controlling new laws coming in (b) being able to sign FTAs with countries the EU doesn't want to and (c) restricting low skilled immigration.
The fact is Northern Ireland gets a, b and c and has free access to the single market. It even gets additional benefits in having locally set regulation for agrifood and healthcare. If the UK as a whole could get such a good deal I would vote for it in a heartbeat.
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as their baby remains missing.
The aristocrat and her partner Mark Gordon were arrested in Brighton on Monday on suspicion of child neglect after several weeks avoiding the police, but the child was not with them.
Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford said: “I can confirm that they were initially arrested on suspicion of child neglect.
“I can now confirm that they have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and that they remain in custody at police stations in Sussex.
Now I’m no Sherlock Holmes but I don’t understand why, when a member of the public spotted the couple and reported to the police, the police didn’t watch and see if the baby was with them and if not, as the case appears, then maybe follow them and check if they go “home” to where they might have left the baby rather than just picking them up there and then.
Because they assumed that no parent would refuse to reveal the location of a child in danger when asked, if they knew?
Because they were in some way a danger to themselves or others?
Because they watched them for a while and concluded they weren’t going back for the child?
A hundred reasons. The police are very far perfect and their actions should be reviewed frequently, but often there is a good reason.
Sorry to be mean, but I think we have long past the "get over it" stage on Covid stats.
I'm not tracking this because of COVID. It's the non-COVID figures that are interesting. I reckon quite a lot of people held off doing Christmas properly in 2021-22 so Christmas 2022-23 was like a big bang leading to a lot of nasty stuff (COVID included) spreading like wildfire.
Fair enough, and thanks for the reply, but then I think that speaks to a wider point about the damaging way the ordeal of the pandemic has made people come to obsess about such things. It seems to me that it's not great for our mental health, and indeed hampers our ability to lead a normal life. Too many have come to see the Great Out There as a threat. Progress is being made, yet I still spotted a woman a couple of days ago walking up an empty street, on her own, in a mask. I worry what is going on inside her head, and the minds of those like her.
TBF she might have been going to the dentist. That's a common explanation here. It's certainly the only time I wear a mask - because I am en route to the dentist.
Why not simply put it on when you arrive? Would you wear a mask on your way to a masked ball?
I live close by. Saves hassle to do it at the same time as coat etc. Simple as that.
Although sometimes it does rain, of course, despite the forecast. So take a brolly or a light cagoule. Don't just stay in.
I'm not convinced by the weather analogy, at least until I see a Weather God who tells me that they want to make it rain.
No, it's not the greatest. Can you do a better one?
To precisely illustrate this - stopping doing something nice for fear of something happening that (i) won't happen for ages if at all and (ii) even if it did look like happening you'd have the chance to take evasive action at the time.
I'm not sure (ii) applies. Once we had the chance to leave it was always going to be the only chance.
Although sometimes it does rain, of course, despite the forecast. So take a brolly or a light cagoule. Don't just stay in.
I'm not convinced by the weather analogy, at least until I see a Weather God who tells me that they want to make it rain.
No, it's not the greatest. Can you do a better one?
To precisely illustrate this - stopping doing something nice for fear of something happening that (i) won't happen for ages if at all and (ii) even if it did look like happening you'd have the chance to take evasive action at the time.
I'm not sure (ii) applies. Once we had the chance to leave it was always going to be the only chance.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
For me, RDS is not a risk taker and jumping in against Trump has multiple risks.
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
Except Trump clearly now loathes DeSantis and would not pick him as his VP nominee.
Plus the rumour is Biden will replace Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee next year who would be a more formidable candidate for the Democrats in 2028 if Biden is re elected next year
Sorry to be mean, but I think we have long past the "get over it" stage on Covid stats.
I'm not tracking this because of COVID. It's the non-COVID figures that are interesting. I reckon quite a lot of people held off doing Christmas properly in 2021-22 so Christmas 2022-23 was like a big bang leading to a lot of nasty stuff (COVID included) spreading like wildfire.
Fair enough, and thanks for the reply, but then I think that speaks to a wider point about the damaging way the ordeal of the pandemic has made people come to obsess about such things. It seems to me that it's not great for our mental health, and indeed hampers our ability to lead a normal life. Too many have come to see the Great Out There as a threat. Progress is being made, yet I still spotted a woman a couple of days ago walking up an empty street, on her own, in a mask. I worry what is going on inside her head, and the minds of those like her.
TBF she might have been going to the dentist. That's a common explanation here. It's certainly the only time I wear a mask - because I am en route to the dentist.
Why not simply put it on when you arrive? Would you wear a mask on your way to a masked ball?
I live close by. Saves hassle to do it at the same time as coat etc. Simple as that.
Plus it’s better not to keep handling it, as they trying to teach us during Covid. If you’re going to wear one, you’re right to wear it properly. And anyway it’s your choice and no one should question you.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
For me, RDS is not a risk taker and jumping in against Trump has multiple risks.
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
Except Trump clearly now loathes DeSantis and would not pick him as his VP nominee.
Plus the rumour is Biden will replace Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee next year who would be a more formidable candidate for the Democrats in 2028 if Biden is re elected next year
Does he want an upset Harris, should he be opposed in the primaries? Not saying she’d win but she could damage him. “He was always asleep”. “He’s past it”. “Don’t you think he looks tired”.
Sorry to be mean, but I think we have long past the "get over it" stage on Covid stats.
I'm not tracking this because of COVID. It's the non-COVID figures that are interesting. I reckon quite a lot of people held off doing Christmas properly in 2021-22 so Christmas 2022-23 was like a big bang leading to a lot of nasty stuff (COVID included) spreading like wildfire.
Fair enough, and thanks for the reply, but then I think that speaks to a wider point about the damaging way the ordeal of the pandemic has made people come to obsess about such things. It seems to me that it's not great for our mental health, and indeed hampers our ability to lead a normal life. Too many have come to see the Great Out There as a threat. Progress is being made, yet I still spotted a woman a couple of days ago walking up an empty street, on her own, in a mask. I worry what is going on inside her head, and the minds of those like her.
TBF she might have been going to the dentist. That's a common explanation here. It's certainly the only time I wear a mask - because I am en route to the dentist.
Why not simply put it on when you arrive? Would you wear a mask on your way to a masked ball?
I live close by. Saves hassle to do it at the same time as coat etc. Simple as that.
Plus it’s better not to keep handling it, as they trying to teach us during Covid. If you’re going to wear one, you’re right to wear it properly. And anyway it’s your choice and no one should question you.
Exactly - if one is wearing a mask at all it's daft to put it on after handling doorhandles and coats and stuff.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
The great Brexit fuckdrama is over. Some think it was a rape. Some a meaningless one night stand to be vaguely regretted. For others it was a sublime consummation
But for all of us, it is now over. The post coital heartbeat is audibly slowing. And the normal political pulse resumes. And so we get on with the day
I think Season One is now over. After nearly 7 years (7 years!) of turmoil we've hit another quasi-equilibrium. That will be enough to render it a virtual non-issue at the next election.
But it will be back for more, hopefully no longer called Brexit, because the UK-EU relationship will never stand still. Sometimes it will be fractious, at other times constructive. I expect us to move back closer into the EU orbit in fits and starts and each will be a little mini-drama but nothing as explosive as the original. Switzerland is the closest analogue we have and the EU relationship dominates their foreign policy.
Wonder what Churchill would say - the UK aspiring to be like Switzerland.
Have you been to Switzerland?
99.9% of the world would like to be Switzerland. Safe, secure, free, democratic and immensely wealthy
If the UK ends up as an offshore version of Switzerland I will be overjoyed. We have global influence from our language and culture anyway. Fuck the rest
It shows a lack of ambition. We are a major European nation who should be at the heart of the continent's politics, not hanging around on the periphery.
But to your question - yes, I've worked in Geneva. No prizes for what sort of client it was. A shadowy private bank run by a snooty family. I helped them get a Bank of England licence to operate in London. This is the sort of thing you get to do if you qualify as a chartered accountant.
I had fondue one night and then afterwards went to gaze at the fountain, thinking of that 60s show The Champions with Alexandra Bastedo. That's quite a vivid memory.
I would rather be rich than at the heart of the continent's politics.
Well I'm disappointed to hear that. But I do get what you mean. If being on the outside boosted economic growth in return for less influence, there'd be a tough choice there. As it is, thus far, it looks like this is not the case. Luckily for Leavers it can never be proven. You'd need to compare how we do (known) to how we would have done (unknown).
But - if being on the outside boosts economic growth - what's the point? Why should I cheer my politicians having influence if it doesn't make me better off? Why would it be a tough choice?
And you're right - the counterfactual can never be proven.
But just while we're talking about it, and for the record - because some Remainers have a habit of assuming anyone not actively extolling Leave at any one time now agrees with Remain - I would vote Leave again, given the chance, and with greater certainty than last time; and the economic case would be part of my case for doing so.
Politics is surely not purely about what makes you materially better off. I mean, I don't want to come across all saintly - I'm in truth as grubby as the next man - but I'm always looking for policies that reduce inequality and most of them, if they're serious as opposed to platitudes, will make me worse off.
To be clear, I'm using the first person in a very broad sense here - what I should have said was "I would rather Britain be rich than have influence" (i.e. I'd rather Britain be like Switzerland) and "why should we cheer our politicians having influence if it doesn't make us better off?" Russia is influential. But I don't think that influence is particularly beneficial to individual Russians.
Well it's kind of moot since we're not better off but ok, I'll take it.
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
To make an analogy, being in the EU is a bit like having a baby
You no longer get to think only of you, the smaller members of the family can be demanding and take what seems to be a disproportionate amount of time and support; you have to fit them into your plans too. It's messy, sometimes there's screaming and shit flying everywhere. But at the end of it, you look at what you have created and realise it's so much more than you were alone.
The other way of looking at this is that there is less capacity to make really difficult decisions in a proactive way, everything that happens is being forced by an urgent need to respond to events.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
There's no realistic path to another candidate (if there even is another candidate) getting a majority. You keep hinting at "possibilities", but you can't enunciate them, which leads to an obvious conclusion.
Any MSP is another candidate.
You're not considering the possibility that an election might be *forced*.
As for the possibilities - I had thought they were blindingly obvious.
Any MSP is a potential candidate, but will another one actually stand/be nominated?
A vote might well take place, but even if it is I can't see a majority coalescing around a single alternative candidate to the new SNP leader. Without a split in the SNP it needs every other MSP to agree on a single candidate. If you're relying on "there is a realistic chance that the SNP might split" then I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere. Especially as, in your last sentence, you're bullshitting again.
It would be news if those greedy, work-shy layabouts WEREN'T going on strike.
The main issues are accumulated pension rights as I undestand it. (Aslef anyway). There are a lot of oldish tube people and they've all had assurances (but not guarantees) about pension rights. The problem is that they have a grievance in the first place, but then it's about who the union leaders are.. and yes it's the old people with pension rights, and then it spins into something about pay, and that's simply because the union leaders need something else on the compalint list rather than pensions for themselves.
Although sometimes it does rain, of course, despite the forecast. So take a brolly or a light cagoule. Don't just stay in.
I'm not convinced by the weather analogy, at least until I see a Weather God who tells me that they want to make it rain.
No, it's not the greatest. Can you do a better one?
To precisely illustrate this - stopping doing something nice for fear of something happening that (i) won't happen for ages if at all and (ii) even if it did look like happening you'd have the chance to take evasive action at the time.
I'm not sure (ii) applies. Once we had the chance to leave it was always going to be the only chance.
Ok, matter of opinion, but assuming it does apply we're looking for a better analogy than my mediocre one.
PCS ballot result shows 100% support for HMRC staff to strike with the turnout threshold having been met. I didn't vote myself as I don't think I received a ballot. I will check they have my correct address. The strike is due to take place on 15 March, budget day, giving members the chance to watch our favourite event of the year without having to be distracted by work. However I don't actually work Wednesdays. So I won't technically be striking or having my pay docked. So I get to be a good union member and keep the benefits, don't lose any pay and can tell everyone else that I wasn't on strike so don't blame me for xyz. Maybe it'll help to get us a pay rise too.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
I'm very interested in this globally unique opportunity now on offer in NI. Being able to trade freely both within the UK and the EU - imagine such a thing!
Question - why would any business local or global choose to invest in GB when NI is best in the world? And why isn't the PM trying to secure the same world-leading deal for the UK?
Imagine it - England being able to trade as freely with France as it can with France. Amazing.
Because it’s not on offer to GB so we must choose, and we chose wisely.
Why can many Remainers not grasp that the NI deal is a a) about a tiny fraction of the single market; and b) never going to be on offer to any entity without the unique circumstances of NI.
You’re missing the whole point.
The point is that being in the single market is being lauded as a benefit, even if it is a “tiny fraction”.
Which, of course, it is a benefit.
Of course it's a benefit.
But it also comes with major costs.
At the end of the day the costs outweighed the benefits, so we left, despite the benefits.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
That, and to distract from the fact that this is a "unicorn" that they've spent years claiming was impossible.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
That, and to distract from the fact that this is a "unicorn" that they've spent years claiming was impossible.
It’s certainly showing up how much they equate the EU with just a single market in goods. They seem to somehow think the NI deal places it inside the whole single market, which means they have no real concept of what it has evolved into since the late 80s.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
For me, RDS is not a risk taker and jumping in against Trump has multiple risks.
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
Except Trump clearly now loathes DeSantis and would not pick him as his VP nominee.
Plus the rumour is Biden will replace Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee next year who would be a more formidable candidate for the Democrats in 2028 if Biden is re elected next year
Trump doesn't loathe RDS, he sees him as a possible threat. If Trump thinks there is a deal to be done, he will turn on a dime and laugh off his criticisms and say he was in a foul mood. And his supporters will accept it.
RDS hasn't hit back yet so is clearly keeping his options clear.
As for Biden ditching Harris, apart from that Little Pete has been seen to be useless (once again) with the East Palestine train crash, the thought of Biden replacing a Black woman with a white guy, even a gay one, is not even remotely possible. Especially as Biden relies enough on the Black vote as it is and, as a voting bloc, they are not particularly tolerant to gay people - especially one who would have replaced a Black woman.
Constance Marten and Mark Gordon have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter as their baby remains missing.
The aristocrat and her partner Mark Gordon were arrested in Brighton on Monday on suspicion of child neglect after several weeks avoiding the police, but the child was not with them.
Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford said: “I can confirm that they were initially arrested on suspicion of child neglect.
“I can now confirm that they have been further arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and that they remain in custody at police stations in Sussex.
Was there not a poster banging on about why were the police interested in this couple and their baby? Maybe this was why?
It was quite obvious there was more than meets the eye to the story.
When we had our first child and my wife was on the maternity unit before going into active labour there was a lady who arrived and was put on the bed next to hers. That family tried saying to the midwives that there was a note on their file to call social services when the baby is born but its all a misunderstanding that has since been resolved so there's no need to do that. Quite rightly the midwives were being polite but having none of it.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
The real dividend to come out of these talks is not NI, which had some irritations but also a highly favoured position both in the SM and out of it at the same time, Schrodinger's cat style, already. The real benefit is the highly constructive and polite relationship Rishi has built with the EU as a whole. This has already paid dividends with the Horizon program but I have little doubt there will be more to come.
If Rishi can continue down this path then I genuinely believe that Brexit will become a non issue for all except a tiny minority who are obsessed with it and the loss of their EU citizenship. This minority will no doubt be loud, just as the ERG nutters/Farage were loud in the past, but the vast majority will simply not care anymore. We will just have to fill our threads up with something else.
Picture living in a more complicated/interesting world where families and/or partners may live and work in say England and France. Where they have been able to move freely for forty years and now they have to calculate what they're doing almost from day to day. School holidays parents getting ill one partner in England the other in France. Work calling you from one place to the other ......... a lifestyle build over many years and circumstances.
Imagine if it was Scotland and England and you needed to stamp in your passport every time you wanted to go from one to the other and your time in each was highly regulated after years of free movement and integration?
From here in the South of France your post sounds incredibly parochial and doesn't correspond to most people's experiences at all. This isn't a 'tiny obsession' of a minority. It's affecting many many peoples lives and some quite profoundly.
I'm with Foxy on this. If Starmer doesn't reinstate our right to move freely as we could until two years ago he'll have let a lot of people down very badly.
People who can afford to have a second home in the south of France are a tiny minority.
0.13% of the U.K. population, or less than a third of the population of Hartlepool, to use Roger’s favourite metric.
If free movement of Brits to the EU was so popular why did more go to Australia - requiring visas & work permits - than to the entire EU? Yes, it’s affected some badly, but the overwhelming majority, not at all.
More of Carlotta's dodgy 'statistics'. In Spain and France alone half a million British people have second homes. And there are still 26 other EU countries to consider. How they know I have no idea. They don't have to be registered so I imagine the number could be much higher. Maybe your .13% referred to the South of France alone?
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
For me, RDS is not a risk taker and jumping in against Trump has multiple risks.
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
Except Trump clearly now loathes DeSantis and would not pick him as his VP nominee.
Plus the rumour is Biden will replace Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee next year who would be a more formidable candidate for the Democrats in 2028 if Biden is re elected next year
Trump doesn't loathe RDS, he sees him as a possible threat. If Trump thinks there is a deal to be done, he will turn on a dime and laugh off his criticisms and say he was in a foul mood. And his supporters will accept it.
RDS hasn't hit back yet so is clearly keeping his options clear.
As for Biden ditching Harris, apart from that Little Pete has been seen to be useless (once again) with the East Palestine train crash, the thought of Biden replacing a Black woman with a white guy, even a gay one, is not even remotely possible. Especially as Biden relies enough on the Black vote as it is and, as a voting bloc, they are not particularly tolerant to gay people - especially one who would have replaced a Black woman.
Incumbents replacing VPs is often speculated, but very rarely happens.
I remember it being discussed of Obama, Bush Sr and Trump, and yet in each case, the boat was not rocked.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
For me, RDS is not a risk taker and jumping in against Trump has multiple risks.
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
Except Trump clearly now loathes DeSantis and would not pick him as his VP nominee.
Plus the rumour is Biden will replace Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee next year who would be a more formidable candidate for the Democrats in 2028 if Biden is re elected next year
Trump doesn't loathe RDS, he sees him as a possible threat. If Trump thinks there is a deal to be done, he will turn on a dime and laugh off his criticisms and say he was in a foul mood. And his supporters will accept it.
RDS hasn't hit back yet so is clearly keeping his options clear.
As for Biden ditching Harris, apart from that Little Pete has been seen to be useless (once again) with the East Palestine train crash, the thought of Biden replacing a Black woman with a white guy, even a gay one, is not even remotely possible. Especially as Biden relies enough on the Black vote as it is and, as a voting bloc, they are not particularly tolerant to gay people - especially one who would have replaced a Black woman.
The Black vote has no great love for Harris, Biden did not get the share of the black vote and turnout Obana did in 2008 and 2012. However he still comfortably won African Americans.
Biden did though win suburban White graduates in 2020 who had voted for Trump in 2016 v Hillary. They are the key swing voters in the US now and Buttigieg appeals to them more than Harris
Although sometimes it does rain, of course, despite the forecast. So take a brolly or a light cagoule. Don't just stay in.
I'm not convinced by the weather analogy, at least until I see a Weather God who tells me that they want to make it rain.
No, it's not the greatest. Can you do a better one?
To precisely illustrate this - stopping doing something nice for fear of something happening that (i) won't happen for ages if at all and (ii) even if it did look like happening you'd have the chance to take evasive action at the time.
I'm not sure (ii) applies. Once we had the chance to leave it was always going to be the only chance.
Utter bollocks.
Yeah because the Scots have had so many second chance post 2014 haven't they? 🤔
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Worth noting the Democrats had a very good February with special elections. If the economy continues to improve, and inflation (and interest rates) recede, then I'm not sure that Trump is going to be in a great position against Biden in 2024.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
It’s a wonderful day, and warms the heart immeasurably, when once immovable Leavers come to embrace the benefits of the Single Market. Welcome back padre, we’ve missed you.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
There's no realistic path to another candidate (if there even is another candidate) getting a majority. You keep hinting at "possibilities", but you can't enunciate them, which leads to an obvious conclusion.
Any MSP is another candidate.
You're not considering the possibility that an election might be *forced*.
As for the possibilities - I had thought they were blindingly obvious.
Any MSP is a potential candidate, but will another one actually stand/be nominated?
A vote might well take place, but even if it is I can't see a majority coalescing around a single alternative candidate to the new SNP leader. Without a split in the SNP it needs every other MSP to agree on a single candidate. If you're relying on "there is a realistic chance that the SNP might split" then I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere. Especially as, in your last sentence, you're bullshitting again.
1) illness or death 2) ...
Edit: just realised where you are going wrong. The SNP *do not have a majority*. In fact, they have a minority. That is made a dead heat solely by one Green MP becoming the Presiding Officer. Now consider what happens if she decides not to be PO any more.
So that is four options right there for throwing everything up in the air.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
That, and to distract from the fact that this is a "unicorn" that they've spent years claiming was impossible.
A needlessly confrontational comment on such an auspicious day.
The years of division and divisiness are over.
Bygones are bygones.
Welcome back to recognising the benefits of the Single Market. It’s great to have you as a brother in arms.
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
For me, RDS is not a risk taker and jumping in against Trump has multiple risks.
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
Except Trump clearly now loathes DeSantis and would not pick him as his VP nominee.
Plus the rumour is Biden will replace Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee next year who would be a more formidable candidate for the Democrats in 2028 if Biden is re elected next year
Trump doesn't loathe RDS, he sees him as a possible threat. If Trump thinks there is a deal to be done, he will turn on a dime and laugh off his criticisms and say he was in a foul mood. And his supporters will accept it.
RDS hasn't hit back yet so is clearly keeping his options clear.
As for Biden ditching Harris, apart from that Little Pete has been seen to be useless (once again) with the East Palestine train crash, the thought of Biden replacing a Black woman with a white guy, even a gay one, is not even remotely possible. Especially as Biden relies enough on the Black vote as it is and, as a voting bloc, they are not particularly tolerant to gay people - especially one who would have replaced a Black woman.
The Black vote has no great love for Harris, Biden did not get the share of the black vote and turnout Obana did in 2008 and 2012. However he still comfortably won African Americans.
Biden did though win suburban White graduates in 2020 who had voted for Trump in 2016 v Hillary. They are the key swing voters in the US now and Buttigieg appeals to them more than Harris
RDS though appeals more to white suburban graduates than Trump does. Even if he wouldn't get the white working class turnout Trump does
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
Straws, faces, dice, unicorns, dust, mouths ... this must be some kind of mixed metaphor record for a short post.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
That, and to distract from the fact that this is a "unicorn" that they've spent years claiming was impossible.
A needlessly confrontational comment on such an auspicious day.
The years of division and divisiness are over.
Bygones are bygones.
Welcome back to recognising the benefits of the Single Market. It’s great to have you as a brother in arms.
And its great to have you as a fellow believer in the acquis, customs union, hard borders and freedom of movement as not being necessary to trade freely with the EU.
The real dividend to come out of these talks is not NI, which had some irritations but also a highly favoured position both in the SM and out of it at the same time, Schrodinger's cat style, already. The real benefit is the highly constructive and polite relationship Rishi has built with the EU as a whole. This has already paid dividends with the Horizon program but I have little doubt there will be more to come.
If Rishi can continue down this path then I genuinely believe that Brexit will become a non issue for all except a tiny minority who are obsessed with it and the loss of their EU citizenship. This minority will no doubt be loud, just as the ERG nutters/Farage were loud in the past, but the vast majority will simply not care anymore. We will just have to fill our threads up with something else.
Picture living in a more complicated/interesting world where families and/or partners may live and work in say England and France. Where they have been able to move freely for forty years and now they have to calculate what they're doing almost from day to day. School holidays parents getting ill one partner in England the other in France. Work calling you from one place to the other ......... a lifestyle build over many years and circumstances.
Imagine if it was Scotland and England and you needed to stamp in your passport every time you wanted to go from one to the other and your time in each was highly regulated after years of free movement and integration?
From here in the South of France your post sounds incredibly parochial and doesn't correspond to most people's experiences at all. This isn't a 'tiny obsession' of a minority. It's affecting many many peoples lives and some quite profoundly.
I'm with Foxy on this. If Starmer doesn't reinstate our right to move freely as we could until two years ago he'll have let a lot of people down very badly.
People who can afford to have a second home in the south of France are a tiny minority.
0.13% of the U.K. population, or less than a third of the population of Hartlepool, to use Roger’s favourite metric.
If free movement of Brits to the EU was so popular why did more go to Australia - requiring visas & work permits - than to the entire EU? Yes, it’s affected some badly, but the overwhelming majority, not at all.
More of Carlotta's dodgy 'statistics'. In Spain and France alone half a million British people have second homes. And there are still 26 other EU countries to consider. How they know I have no idea. They don't have to be registered so I imagine the number could be much higher. Maybe your .13% referred to the South of France alone?
Half a million is well under 1% - still a tiny minority even though you've broadened it massively...
The great Brexit fuckdrama is over. Some think it was a rape. Some a meaningless one night stand to be vaguely regretted. For others it was a sublime consummation
But for all of us, it is now over. The post coital heartbeat is audibly slowing. And the normal political pulse resumes. And so we get on with the day
I think Season One is now over. After nearly 7 years (7 years!) of turmoil we've hit another quasi-equilibrium. That will be enough to render it a virtual non-issue at the next election.
But it will be back for more, hopefully no longer called Brexit, because the UK-EU relationship will never stand still. Sometimes it will be fractious, at other times constructive. I expect us to move back closer into the EU orbit in fits and starts and each will be a little mini-drama but nothing as explosive as the original. Switzerland is the closest analogue we have and the EU relationship dominates their foreign policy.
Wonder what Churchill would say - the UK aspiring to be like Switzerland.
Have you been to Switzerland?
99.9% of the world would like to be Switzerland. Safe, secure, free, democratic and immensely wealthy
If the UK ends up as an offshore version of Switzerland I will be overjoyed. We have global influence from our language and culture anyway. Fuck the rest
It shows a lack of ambition. We are a major European nation who should be at the heart of the continent's politics, not hanging around on the periphery.
But to your question - yes, I've worked in Geneva. No prizes for what sort of client it was. A shadowy private bank run by a snooty family. I helped them get a Bank of England licence to operate in London. This is the sort of thing you get to do if you qualify as a chartered accountant.
I had fondue one night and then afterwards went to gaze at the fountain, thinking of that 60s show The Champions with Alexandra Bastedo. That's quite a vivid memory.
I would rather be rich than at the heart of the continent's politics.
Well I'm disappointed to hear that. But I do get what you mean. If being on the outside boosted economic growth in return for less influence, there'd be a tough choice there. As it is, thus far, it looks like this is not the case. Luckily for Leavers it can never be proven. You'd need to compare how we do (known) to how we would have done (unknown).
But - if being on the outside boosts economic growth - what's the point? Why should I cheer my politicians having influence if it doesn't make me better off? Why would it be a tough choice?
And you're right - the counterfactual can never be proven.
But just while we're talking about it, and for the record - because some Remainers have a habit of assuming anyone not actively extolling Leave at any one time now agrees with Remain - I would vote Leave again, given the chance, and with greater certainty than last time; and the economic case would be part of my case for doing so.
Politics is surely not purely about what makes you materially better off. I mean, I don't want to come across all saintly - I'm in truth as grubby as the next man - but I'm always looking for policies that reduce inequality and most of them, if they're serious as opposed to platitudes, will make me worse off.
To be clear, I'm using the first person in a very broad sense here - what I should have said was "I would rather Britain be rich than have influence" (i.e. I'd rather Britain be like Switzerland) and "why should we cheer our politicians having influence if it doesn't make us better off?" Russia is influential. But I don't think that influence is particularly beneficial to individual Russians.
Well it's kind of moot since we're not better off but ok, I'll take it.
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
Well (and I’m only telling you my view for clarity, because I don’t expect to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree) my view is that we are, economically better off out. Or rather, in the medium to long term, and considering British individuals, and particularly those in the lower and middle quintiles, taking into account the risks and rewards and opportunities and threats of both remaining and leaving, the risks/rewards of leaving look more favourable than the risks/rewards of leaving. Monte-Carloing it, if you will. There are some futures which play out on both the Remain and Leave side which are very good or very bad for British people, though most futures are somewhere in the middle (and in most futures the impacts of Brexit are dwarfed by the impacts of both Covid and Ukraine). My view is that in most economic analyses of Brexit the risks of remaining are understated and the opportunities of leaving are understated.
Anyway – on your second point – you are right: I would look at that and my instinctive reaction would be ‘that’s no way to run a continent’. I would see more threat in those people having a say in my life than opportunity in my politicians being able to have a say in other Europeans’ lives.
And it’s not an aversion to Europe per se. I have a kind of 1960s idealism about Europe. The Italian Job, If it’s Tuesday it Must be Belgium, Monte Carlo or Bust. I grew up thinking how great it would be if Europe was a country. But my view is that European politics doesn’t work to the advantage of its member states’ populations. I have a further view that that failure is baked into the nature of Europe as a multilingual bloc of dozens of divergent cultures – hell, we have a difficult enough job sharing a union with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish – but that is much more contestable and more interesting.
You don't say so here but I think at the heart of this is a view that the EU is tracking with speed to become a Superstate, dissolving its constituent parts without the consent of the people. If I thought that I'd be a bit spooked, but I don't. IMO this is far far away as a realistic prospect, if it is at all. Bailing out now for fear of that is to me like staying in on a sunny day because it might rain.
But to change the subject before this all goes too weighty, The Italian Job - that reminds me of The Gold, which I've just finished. Terrific drama. One of the best I've seen for a while. So brave and original to cast it without Ray Winstone. My only quibble was the (imo) rather strained attempt to freight the villains with working class hero status, fighting the good fight against The Establishment. I don't buy all that.
Apologies for continuing to drag this out, but it's an exchange of views I'm finding interesting. (We're both, I think, intelligent, yet arrive at very different conclusions. What starting points lead to this? etc.) You're right that I think the EU is on tge road to superstatehood, but that's not the economic argument for leaving, it's a political one. It's economic might-never-happen argument is that I think there is a reasonable chance that the Euro to turns to dust at some point in the next 15 years and the further we are from that meltdown, the better. It might not happen. But the upsides of membership (balanced with tge otger downsides) don't to me make it worth hanging around to find out. Particularly as we were unlikely to get another chance to leave.
I shall look out for the Gold, and celebrate its lack of Ray Winstone.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
The biggest supporters of the deal on here all seem to be people that voted Leave, while former Remainers are scrabbling around with various spin lines to find a narrative.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they told me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
Cannot count either given SNP is a minority in Holyrood. Are you coherent at anything.
More coherent than you, apparently, since I never claimed that the SNP had a Holyrood majority.
Listen you clown , you said it was impossible not to have SNP FM. Basic arithmetic tells a different story. They are a minority in the chamber , I will explain that clearly for you , other people hav emore votes than them and if they wanted they could ensure that it was not an SNP FM.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
Boris is annoyed that he's not Prime Minister and not the one getting credit for this. He doesn't disagree with the deal (which is what he proposed in the first place!) and he doesn't care about the public, he cares that he's not Prime Minister.
Many pro-Europeans seem to be welcoming of Rishi's deal apparently as they believe it to be a repudiation of Boris, despite it being exactly what Boris proposed eight months ago.
Every Eurosceptic here seems to be welcoming it too.
Will we ever ditch the term remainers in favour of rejoiners? Getting tedious now.
Maybe if any of them actually had the guts to advocate rejoining rather than just moaning about leaving.
I think most of us would like to rejoin, so I am not sure what your point is.
The point is, as I said, virtually nobody who would like to rejoin actually advocates it, they prefer to moan about leaving.
If we rejoin, there are two upsides - firstly we regain most of the benefits of membership and stop the damage being done to business, students, scientists, young people, etc. - and second, we will still be able to keep on moaning at leavers for having thrown away the remarkable best-of-both-worlds position we had achieved post-Thatcher, Major and Cameron, that is unlikely to be on offer to us again.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
There's no realistic path to another candidate (if there even is another candidate) getting a majority. You keep hinting at "possibilities", but you can't enunciate them, which leads to an obvious conclusion.
Any MSP is another candidate.
You're not considering the possibility that an election might be *forced*.
As for the possibilities - I had thought they were blindingly obvious.
Any MSP is a potential candidate, but will another one actually stand/be nominated?
A vote might well take place, but even if it is I can't see a majority coalescing around a single alternative candidate to the new SNP leader. Without a split in the SNP it needs every other MSP to agree on a single candidate. If you're relying on "there is a realistic chance that the SNP might split" then I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere. Especially as, in your last sentence, you're bullshitting again.
1) illness or death 2) ...
Edit: just realised where you are going wrong. The SNP *do not have a majority*. In fact, they have a minority. That is made a dead heat solely by one Green MP becoming the Presiding Officer. Now consider what happens if she decides not to be PO any more.
So that is four options right there for throwing everything up in the air.
Realistic possibilities?
And, once again, I have never once said or assumed that the SNP have been a majority.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
There's no realistic path to another candidate (if there even is another candidate) getting a majority. You keep hinting at "possibilities", but you can't enunciate them, which leads to an obvious conclusion.
Any MSP is another candidate.
You're not considering the possibility that an election might be *forced*.
As for the possibilities - I had thought they were blindingly obvious.
Any MSP is a potential candidate, but will another one actually stand/be nominated?
A vote might well take place, but even if it is I can't see a majority coalescing around a single alternative candidate to the new SNP leader. Without a split in the SNP it needs every other MSP to agree on a single candidate. If you're relying on "there is a realistic chance that the SNP might split" then I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere. Especially as, in your last sentence, you're bullshitting again.
1) illness or death 2) ...
Edit: just realised where you are going wrong. The SNP *do not have a majority*. In fact, they have a minority. That is made a dead heat solely by one Green MP becoming the Presiding Officer. Now consider what happens if she decides not to be PO any more.
So that is four options right there for throwing everything up in the air.
Realistic possibilities?
And, once again, I have never once said or assumed that the SNP have been a majority.
You're just being disingenuous. What do you want me to demonstrate, the prime number theorem?
Emerson has a poll showing Trump up 30% against RDS for the GOP nomination. More importantly, it also shows Trump beating Biden by 4 but Biden beating RDS by 4 and Haley by 3.
If this doesn't change dramatically, RDS is not going to run. Yes, some polls show him better than this but he will want the consistency of knowing he can beat Trump and Biden. He hasn't got that. I still think the most likely scenario is a Trump-RDS ticket.
DYOR
There's huge variation in the Republican polls - Morning Consult, by contrast, has the gap as 18 points.
Fwiw, I think there's an 70-80% chance that RDS stands. Simply, there will never be a better time than after he's cantered to a win in Florida.
For me, RDS is not a risk taker and jumping in against Trump has multiple risks.
The first is the obvious - he loses to Trump in the primary, earns his enmity and, for 2028, either would be up against a GOP VP who would be the front runner or would be competing as one of many - 4 years is a long time for others to emerge.
Second, if he takes Trump down, it doesn't necessarily mean RDS is the main beneficiary. A weakened Trump would encourage others to enter and, if RDS is seen as the driver of Trump's fall, it's easy to see a 'Stop RDS' campaign building up.
Third, the polling is not exactly great for RDS v Biden.
His safest option - and safest is the right word - is to do a deal with Trump, stand as his VP (with some sort of arrangement around Trump's home state) and then be in a stronger position to win the 2028 nomination. If Trump loses, he can blame Trump and it's likely RDS will put up a good show v Harris. If Trump wins, RDS is the natural successor.
Except Trump clearly now loathes DeSantis and would not pick him as his VP nominee.
Plus the rumour is Biden will replace Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee next year who would be a more formidable candidate for the Democrats in 2028 if Biden is re elected next year
Trump doesn't loathe RDS, he sees him as a possible threat. If Trump thinks there is a deal to be done, he will turn on a dime and laugh off his criticisms and say he was in a foul mood. And his supporters will accept it.
RDS hasn't hit back yet so is clearly keeping his options clear.
As for Biden ditching Harris, apart from that Little Pete has been seen to be useless (once again) with the East Palestine train crash, the thought of Biden replacing a Black woman with a white guy, even a gay one, is not even remotely possible. Especially as Biden relies enough on the Black vote as it is and, as a voting bloc, they are not particularly tolerant to gay people - especially one who would have replaced a Black woman.
Incumbents replacing VPs is often speculated, but very rarely happens.
I remember it being discussed of Obama, Bush Sr and Trump, and yet in each case, the boat was not rocked.
My favourite post of today was the ‘reason’ that it would be “rude to ask” Ursula how we might go about extending NI’s deal to the other three constituent nations of the UK.
Since about 2014, we’ve had direct streaming from phones to hearing aids which works really well. But it has its limits - mainly that it’s 1:1 and limited to iOS/android.
Computers/tv’s/cinemas/performances/shops/customer service counters/public announcements/etc are still a right PITA for us.
Auracast has the potential to change all of this. The expensive and unreliable loop systems are finally going to be replaced with something that works.
And it’s coming this year.
Very recent technology has made deafness far less miserable and isolating. It’s an under appreciated triumph.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
Boris is annoyed that he's not Prime Minister and not the one getting credit for this. He doesn't disagree with the deal (which is what he proposed in the first place!) and he doesn't care about the public, he cares that he's not Prime Minister.
Many pro-Europeans seem to be welcoming of Rishi's deal apparently as they believe it to be a repudiation of Boris, despite it being exactly what Boris proposed eight months ago.
Every Eurosceptic here seems to be welcoming it too.
Doesn’t really matter regarding Johnson, since everyone knows that the EU would never have offered that twat this deal in the first place. Behaving like a grown up was the first entry criterion.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
Boris is annoyed that he's not Prime Minister and not the one getting credit for this. He doesn't disagree with the deal (which is what he proposed in the first place!) and he doesn't care about the public, he cares that he's not Prime Minister.
Many pro-Europeans seem to be welcoming of Rishi's deal apparently as they believe it to be a repudiation of Boris, despite it being exactly what Boris proposed eight months ago.
Every Eurosceptic here seems to be welcoming it too.
If Boris invented Rishi's deal then it's genuinely a shame for him that he didn't implement it. Presumably this is simply because he didn't have the negotiating skills or the respect and trust of the other side.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
Boris is annoyed that he's not Prime Minister and not the one getting credit for this. He doesn't disagree with the deal (which is what he proposed in the first place!) and he doesn't care about the public, he cares that he's not Prime Minister.
Many pro-Europeans seem to be welcoming of Rishi's deal apparently as they believe it to be a repudiation of Boris, despite it being exactly what Boris proposed eight months ago.
Every Eurosceptic here seems to be welcoming it too.
Doesn’t really matter regarding Johnson, since everyone knows that the EU would never have offered that twat this deal in the first place. Behaving like a grown up was the first entry criterion.
The EU would never have offered this to anyone in the first place. Boris left them no choice with the NI Protocol Bill.
Despite your spin, Sunak has continued the exact same negotiations, in the same way, as Boris did.
Boris introduced the NI Protocol and said "give us this deal, or we pass the Bill". Truss kept the Protocol on the table and said "give us this deal, or we pass the Bill". Sunak then arrived, kept the Protocol in the Lords and said "if you give us this deal, I won't pass the Bill".
And you think the latter was "grown up" and different? Suuuuurreeee ...
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
There's no realistic path to another candidate (if there even is another candidate) getting a majority. You keep hinting at "possibilities", but you can't enunciate them, which leads to an obvious conclusion.
Any MSP is another candidate.
You're not considering the possibility that an election might be *forced*.
As for the possibilities - I had thought they were blindingly obvious.
Any MSP is a potential candidate, but will another one actually stand/be nominated?
A vote might well take place, but even if it is I can't see a majority coalescing around a single alternative candidate to the new SNP leader. Without a split in the SNP it needs every other MSP to agree on a single candidate. If you're relying on "there is a realistic chance that the SNP might split" then I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere. Especially as, in your last sentence, you're bullshitting again.
Can you not get it through your thick skull, it is possible unlike your dribbling. It may be low chance but it is possible, just because a turnip like you thinks it will not happen does not make it cast in stone.
The real dividend to come out of these talks is not NI, which had some irritations but also a highly favoured position both in the SM and out of it at the same time, Schrodinger's cat style, already. The real benefit is the highly constructive and polite relationship Rishi has built with the EU as a whole. This has already paid dividends with the Horizon program but I have little doubt there will be more to come.
If Rishi can continue down this path then I genuinely believe that Brexit will become a non issue for all except a tiny minority who are obsessed with it and the loss of their EU citizenship. This minority will no doubt be loud, just as the ERG nutters/Farage were loud in the past, but the vast majority will simply not care anymore. We will just have to fill our threads up with something else.
Picture living in a more complicated/interesting world where families and/or partners may live and work in say England and France. Where they have been able to move freely for forty years and now they have to calculate what they're doing almost from day to day. School holidays parents getting ill one partner in England the other in France. Work calling you from one place to the other ......... a lifestyle build over many years and circumstances.
Imagine if it was Scotland and England and you needed to stamp in your passport every time you wanted to go from one to the other and your time in each was highly regulated after years of free movement and integration?
From here in the South of France your post sounds incredibly parochial and doesn't correspond to most people's experiences at all. This isn't a 'tiny obsession' of a minority. It's affecting many many peoples lives and some quite profoundly.
I'm with Foxy on this. If Starmer doesn't reinstate our right to move freely as we could until two years ago he'll have let a lot of people down very badly.
People who can afford to have a second home in the south of France are a tiny minority.
0.13% of the U.K. population, or less than a third of the population of Hartlepool, to use Roger’s favourite metric.
If free movement of Brits to the EU was so popular why did more go to Australia - requiring visas & work permits - than to the entire EU? Yes, it’s affected some badly, but the overwhelming majority, not at all.
More of Carlotta's dodgy 'statistics'. In Spain and France alone half a million British people have second homes. And there are still 26 other EU countries to consider. How they know I have no idea. They don't have to be registered so I imagine the number could be much higher. Maybe your .13% referred to the South of France alone?
National statistics body Insee says Britons own some 86,000 second homes in France
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
Boris is annoyed that he's not Prime Minister and not the one getting credit for this. He doesn't disagree with the deal (which is what he proposed in the first place!) and he doesn't care about the public, he cares that he's not Prime Minister.
Many pro-Europeans seem to be welcoming of Rishi's deal apparently as they believe it to be a repudiation of Boris, despite it being exactly what Boris proposed eight months ago.
Every Eurosceptic here seems to be welcoming it too.
Most Leavers like the deal because it sorts out Northern Ireland and (broadly) increases British sovereignty.
Most Remainers like the deal because they it as ushering a new era of better cooperation between the EU and the UK.
The real dividend to come out of these talks is not NI, which had some irritations but also a highly favoured position both in the SM and out of it at the same time, Schrodinger's cat style, already. The real benefit is the highly constructive and polite relationship Rishi has built with the EU as a whole. This has already paid dividends with the Horizon program but I have little doubt there will be more to come.
If Rishi can continue down this path then I genuinely believe that Brexit will become a non issue for all except a tiny minority who are obsessed with it and the loss of their EU citizenship. This minority will no doubt be loud, just as the ERG nutters/Farage were loud in the past, but the vast majority will simply not care anymore. We will just have to fill our threads up with something else.
Picture living in a more complicated/interesting world where families and/or partners may live and work in say England and France. Where they have been able to move freely for forty years and now they have to calculate what they're doing almost from day to day. School holidays parents getting ill one partner in England the other in France. Work calling you from one place to the other ......... a lifestyle build over many years and circumstances.
Imagine if it was Scotland and England and you needed to stamp in your passport every time you wanted to go from one to the other and your time in each was highly regulated after years of free movement and integration?
From here in the South of France your post sounds incredibly parochial and doesn't correspond to most people's experiences at all. This isn't a 'tiny obsession' of a minority. It's affecting many many peoples lives and some quite profoundly.
I'm with Foxy on this. If Starmer doesn't reinstate our right to move freely as we could until two years ago he'll have let a lot of people down very badly.
People who can afford to have a second home in the south of France are a tiny minority.
0.13% of the U.K. population, or less than a third of the population of Hartlepool, to use Roger’s favourite metric.
If free movement of Brits to the EU was so popular why did more go to Australia - requiring visas & work permits - than to the entire EU? Yes, it’s affected some badly, but the overwhelming majority, not at all.
More of Carlotta's dodgy 'statistics'. In Spain and France alone half a million British people have second homes. And there are still 26 other EU countries to consider. How they know I have no idea. They don't have to be registered so I imagine the number could be much higher. Maybe your .13% referred to the South of France alone?
Half a million is well under 1% - still a tiny minority even though you've broadened it massively...
The number of British citizens that lived in Spain was slightly over under 293,171 as of January 2022.
The great Brexit fuckdrama is over. Some think it was a rape. Some a meaningless one night stand to be vaguely regretted. For others it was a sublime consummation
But for all of us, it is now over. The post coital heartbeat is audibly slowing. And the normal political pulse resumes. And so we get on with the day
I think Season One is now over. After nearly 7 years (7 years!) of turmoil we've hit another quasi-equilibrium. That will be enough to render it a virtual non-issue at the next election.
But it will be back for more, hopefully no longer called Brexit, because the UK-EU relationship will never stand still. Sometimes it will be fractious, at other times constructive. I expect us to move back closer into the EU orbit in fits and starts and each will be a little mini-drama but nothing as explosive as the original. Switzerland is the closest analogue we have and the EU relationship dominates their foreign policy.
Wonder what Churchill would say - the UK aspiring to be like Switzerland.
Have you been to Switzerland?
99.9% of the world would like to be Switzerland. Safe, secure, free, democratic and immensely wealthy
If the UK ends up as an offshore version of Switzerland I will be overjoyed. We have global influence from our language and culture anyway. Fuck the rest
It shows a lack of ambition. We are a major European nation who should be at the heart of the continent's politics, not hanging around on the periphery.
But to your question - yes, I've worked in Geneva. No prizes for what sort of client it was. A shadowy private bank run by a snooty family. I helped them get a Bank of England licence to operate in London. This is the sort of thing you get to do if you qualify as a chartered accountant.
I had fondue one night and then afterwards went to gaze at the fountain, thinking of that 60s show The Champions with Alexandra Bastedo. That's quite a vivid memory.
I would rather be rich than at the heart of the continent's politics.
Well I'm disappointed to hear that. But I do get what you mean. If being on the outside boosted economic growth in return for less influence, there'd be a tough choice there. As it is, thus far, it looks like this is not the case. Luckily for Leavers it can never be proven. You'd need to compare how we do (known) to how we would have done (unknown).
But - if being on the outside boosts economic growth - what's the point? Why should I cheer my politicians having influence if it doesn't make me better off? Why would it be a tough choice?
And you're right - the counterfactual can never be proven.
But just while we're talking about it, and for the record - because some Remainers have a habit of assuming anyone not actively extolling Leave at any one time now agrees with Remain - I would vote Leave again, given the chance, and with greater certainty than last time; and the economic case would be part of my case for doing so.
Politics is surely not purely about what makes you materially better off. I mean, I don't want to come across all saintly - I'm in truth as grubby as the next man - but I'm always looking for policies that reduce inequality and most of them, if they're serious as opposed to platitudes, will make me worse off.
To be clear, I'm using the first person in a very broad sense here - what I should have said was "I would rather Britain be rich than have influence" (i.e. I'd rather Britain be like Switzerland) and "why should we cheer our politicians having influence if it doesn't make us better off?" Russia is influential. But I don't think that influence is particularly beneficial to individual Russians.
Well it's kind of moot since we're not better off but ok, I'll take it.
A while ago there was a fly-on-the-wall documentary showing how the EU thrashed out a thorny issue in Brussels. It was real warts-and-all stuff, the fractious meetings, the clashing agendas, the Poles getting shirty about something, Italy playing up, us being stiff upper lip (per our national character), Germany trying to hold the ring, all extremely messy, plus Macron was there, and you could have had 2 different reactions to it:
Oh god, what a menagerie, we should just butt out and leave them to it.
Wow. Collective internationalist politics in the raw. How great that they're doing this, rather than fighting wars, or just all ploughing their own lane. And how great that we're right there in the thick of it.
I very much felt the 2nd of these. And leaving aside the economic side of things - which is important of course - I think this is another of the more subliminal Remainer/Leaver divides. Lots of Remainers would feel as I did watching that prog but very few Leavers would. To me this is laziness, to want out. Course you won't see it that way.
Well (and I’m only telling you my view for clarity, because I don’t expect to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree) my view is that we are, economically better off out. Or rather, in the medium to long term, and considering British individuals, and particularly those in the lower and middle quintiles, taking into account the risks and rewards and opportunities and threats of both remaining and leaving, the risks/rewards of leaving look more favourable than the risks/rewards of leaving. Monte-Carloing it, if you will. There are some futures which play out on both the Remain and Leave side which are very good or very bad for British people, though most futures are somewhere in the middle (and in most futures the impacts of Brexit are dwarfed by the impacts of both Covid and Ukraine). My view is that in most economic analyses of Brexit the risks of remaining are understated and the opportunities of leaving are understated.
Anyway – on your second point – you are right: I would look at that and my instinctive reaction would be ‘that’s no way to run a continent’. I would see more threat in those people having a say in my life than opportunity in my politicians being able to have a say in other Europeans’ lives.
And it’s not an aversion to Europe per se. I have a kind of 1960s idealism about Europe. The Italian Job, If it’s Tuesday it Must be Belgium, Monte Carlo or Bust. I grew up thinking how great it would be if Europe was a country. But my view is that European politics doesn’t work to the advantage of its member states’ populations. I have a further view that that failure is baked into the nature of Europe as a multilingual bloc of dozens of divergent cultures – hell, we have a difficult enough job sharing a union with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish – but that is much more contestable and more interesting.
You don't say so here but I think at the heart of this is a view that the EU is tracking with speed to become a Superstate, dissolving its constituent parts without the consent of the people. If I thought that I'd be a bit spooked, but I don't. IMO this is far far away as a realistic prospect, if it is at all. Bailing out now for fear of that is to me like staying in on a sunny day because it might rain.
But to change the subject before this all goes too weighty, The Italian Job - that reminds me of The Gold, which I've just finished. Terrific drama. One of the best I've seen for a while. So brave and original to cast it without Ray Winstone. My only quibble was the (imo) rather strained attempt to freight the villains with working class hero status, fighting the good fight against The Establishment. I don't buy all that.
Apologies for continuing to drag this out, but it's an exchange of views I'm finding interesting. (We're both, I think, intelligent, yet arrive at very different conclusions. What starting points lead to this? etc.) You're right that I think the EU is on tge road to superstatehood, but that's not the economic argument for leaving, it's a political one. It's economic might-never-happen argument is that I think there is a reasonable chance that the Euro to turns to dust at some point in the next 15 years and the further we are from that meltdown, the better. It might not happen. But the upsides of membership (balanced with tge otger downsides) don't to me make it worth hanging around to find out. Particularly as we were unlikely to get another chance to leave.
I shall look out for the Gold, and celebrate its lack of Ray Winstone.
I just finished "The Gold" last night , was excellent indeed. On iplayer, 6 episodes.
The real dividend to come out of these talks is not NI, which had some irritations but also a highly favoured position both in the SM and out of it at the same time, Schrodinger's cat style, already. The real benefit is the highly constructive and polite relationship Rishi has built with the EU as a whole. This has already paid dividends with the Horizon program but I have little doubt there will be more to come.
If Rishi can continue down this path then I genuinely believe that Brexit will become a non issue for all except a tiny minority who are obsessed with it and the loss of their EU citizenship. This minority will no doubt be loud, just as the ERG nutters/Farage were loud in the past, but the vast majority will simply not care anymore. We will just have to fill our threads up with something else.
Picture living in a more complicated/interesting world where families and/or partners may live and work in say England and France. Where they have been able to move freely for forty years and now they have to calculate what they're doing almost from day to day. School holidays parents getting ill one partner in England the other in France. Work calling you from one place to the other ......... a lifestyle build over many years and circumstances.
Imagine if it was Scotland and England and you needed to stamp in your passport every time you wanted to go from one to the other and your time in each was highly regulated after years of free movement and integration?
From here in the South of France your post sounds incredibly parochial and doesn't correspond to most people's experiences at all. This isn't a 'tiny obsession' of a minority. It's affecting many many peoples lives and some quite profoundly.
I'm with Foxy on this. If Starmer doesn't reinstate our right to move freely as we could until two years ago he'll have let a lot of people down very badly.
People who can afford to have a second home in the south of France are a tiny minority.
0.13% of the U.K. population, or less than a third of the population of Hartlepool, to use Roger’s favourite metric.
If free movement of Brits to the EU was so popular why did more go to Australia - requiring visas & work permits - than to the entire EU? Yes, it’s affected some badly, but the overwhelming majority, not at all.
More of Carlotta's dodgy 'statistics'. In Spain and France alone half a million British people have second homes. And there are still 26 other EU countries to consider. How they know I have no idea. They don't have to be registered so I imagine the number could be much higher. Maybe your .13% referred to the South of France alone?
Half a million is well under 1% - still a tiny minority even though you've broadened it massively...
The number of British citizens that lived in Spain was slightly over under 293,171 as of January 2022.
Why is Rishi going on and on and on about what a great deal this is for Northern Ireland. Presumably he has enough nous to realise that benefiting Northern Ireland to the detriment of England Scotland and Wales is not likely to be a vote winner. My guess is he knows there will be substantial disapproval in Belfast and so is selling it as best he can. He might have reduced the friction in GB>NI trade but the friction is still there, in a way unimaginable until a few years ago.
Murrells will be twitching , harder to fiddle if not held all in secret. People will see and hear how useless their sockpuppet is in reality.
I think the "safe space" line was perfectly, and deliberately, designed to wind you up. Probably Driver who came up with it.
Will backfire though. Going to end up with a whole bunch of televised hustings.
Nothing to do with Driver, he is not bright enough for that. It was in official SNP stuff. It will indeed be bad for Murrells and tehir sockpuppet. You underestimate me big time by thinking that a dumb ass like Driver could wind me up as well.
Murrells will be twitching , harder to fiddle if not held all in secret. People will see and hear how useless their sockpuppet is in reality.
Ash Regan on the hustings decision; "The media have a job to do, and as candidates, we have a duty to be held to scrutiny. I firmly believe we should allow access and ask that the media carry the proceedings fairly and fully - making them available to all.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
Boris is annoyed that he's not Prime Minister and not the one getting credit for this. He doesn't disagree with the deal (which is what he proposed in the first place!) and he doesn't care about the public, he cares that he's not Prime Minister.
Many pro-Europeans seem to be welcoming of Rishi's deal apparently as they believe it to be a repudiation of Boris, despite it being exactly what Boris proposed eight months ago.
Every Eurosceptic here seems to be welcoming it too.
The EU would never agree to this deal with Johnson because they see him as never acting in good faith and wouldn’t trust him to honour any agreement . Sunak got the deal because he built up good relations and seemed like a pragmatic politician who would honour any agreement . I support the deal because I want to see the UK and EU have a good relationship and work together where possible . I could care less about the fat lying waste of space that masqueraded as the PM for too long !
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they told me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
Cannot count either given SNP is a minority in Holyrood. Are you coherent at anything.
More coherent than you, apparently, since I never claimed that the SNP had a Holyrood majority.
Listen you clown , you said it was impossible not to have SNP FM. Basic arithmetic tells a different story. They are a minority in the chamber , I will explain that clearly for you , other people hav emore votes than them and if they wanted they could ensure that it was not an SNP FM.
If I was going to be particularly cruel I could quote SNP supporters about a handful of people in the country choosing a Prime Minister rather the wider electorate.
Does the same principle apply to the First Minister of Scotland?
The fact the SNP want to hide their hustings makes their hypocrisy much worse.
Not true. The MSPs choose the FM. Legally, and in practice with small party numbers.
The same de facto principle applies to the PM.
A PM cannot be PM if they do not command support of the House.
But it's not formally tested, is it? Only if the LoTo has the balls.
And Westminster is FPTP. With minority and coalition governments, under buggered d'Hondt, it's far less obvious who the correct FM is.
In the current Holyrood parliament, the correct FM is obviously the SNP leader - and the new SNP leader will be the new FM.
Still, there will be a formal vote. And the margin is razor-thin if counting on the SNP vote.
My understanding is that it's not "this candidate for FM: yes or no?" but "which of these candidates for FM?" - who else gets nominated that can command support from every non-SNP MSP? Does anyone else even get nominated at all?
It varies. Sometimes others do get nominated. That link you gave shows Mr Rennie standing, for instance.
Edit: the primary mechanism at Holyrood IS the FM vote. Not nudge, wink, word with the Royal Equerry, with a vote only needed if things have failed.
Right, and even though he stood everyone else abstained.
Perhaps some other party leader stands - but even if they do they have zero chance of obtaining a majority and the new SNP leader will be the new FM, therefore the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
Look at the numbers. I keep saying, look at the numbers. And think.
I have looked at the numbers. And they tiold me that unless SNP MSPs start voting against their own leader, there is zero chance of the new SNP leader not being the new FM.
That's one possibility, but there are others.
The correlation is high, but not unity.
Look, you can pretend otherwise - and I understand exactly why you are doing so - but it is transparent pretence. The reality is that the new SNP leader is going to be the new FM - no other potential candidate can win a Holyrood majority, and an early election isn't in the interests of the second-largest Hoyrood party. In the real world, the SNP leadership election is the real FM election and the Holyrood vote is a rubber stamp.
You're still not thinking it through, in the current circumstances.
The numbers and politics don't allow for anything else, and you know it.
I don't, *especially* given the politics. It's less likely to happen than not, but certainly not zero.
There's no realistic path to another candidate (if there even is another candidate) getting a majority. You keep hinting at "possibilities", but you can't enunciate them, which leads to an obvious conclusion.
Any MSP is another candidate.
You're not considering the possibility that an election might be *forced*.
As for the possibilities - I had thought they were blindingly obvious.
Any MSP is a potential candidate, but will another one actually stand/be nominated?
A vote might well take place, but even if it is I can't see a majority coalescing around a single alternative candidate to the new SNP leader. Without a split in the SNP it needs every other MSP to agree on a single candidate. If you're relying on "there is a realistic chance that the SNP might split" then I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere. Especially as, in your last sentence, you're bullshitting again.
1) illness or death 2) ...
Edit: just realised where you are going wrong. The SNP *do not have a majority*. In fact, they have a minority. That is made a dead heat solely by one Green MP becoming the Presiding Officer. Now consider what happens if she decides not to be PO any more.
So that is four options right there for throwing everything up in the air.
Realistic possibilities?
And, once again, I have never once said or assumed that the SNP have been a majority.
You're just being disingenuous. What do you want me to demonstrate, the prime number theorem?
I would like you to demonstrate a realistic possibility of someone other than the new SNP leader being the next FM, since you claim there are several such realistic possibilities.
Some of our prominent remainers seem discombobulated (or should we say discombobazinalated) by this deal. All sorts of tortured logic and attempted 'killer points' going on as they come to terms with it.
Welcome back, old friend, to embracing the benefits of the Single Market. It's great to get the old gang back together <
Case in point.
Yup. There’s a a lot of wilful ignorance going on from rejoiners choosing not to see what this deal is and isn’t. I presume they all understand perfectly well but are trying to provoke.
They're desperately grasping at straws to save face.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
What a strange analysis. The pro-Europeans seem to be unanimously welcoming of Rishi's deal; it's only Boris and some of his admirers who are pouring cold water on it. Why would that happen if it put Boris and Brexit in such a great light?
Boris is annoyed that he's not Prime Minister and not the one getting credit for this. He doesn't disagree with the deal (which is what he proposed in the first place!) and he doesn't care about the public, he cares that he's not Prime Minister.
Many pro-Europeans seem to be welcoming of Rishi's deal apparently as they believe it to be a repudiation of Boris, despite it being exactly what Boris proposed eight months ago.
Every Eurosceptic here seems to be welcoming it too.
If Boris invented Rishi's deal then it's genuinely a shame for him that he didn't implement it. Presumably this is simply because he didn't have the negotiating skills or the respect and trust of the other side.
Yes, I'm a bit bemused at the idea Boris could have done it but didn't is a defence of him
Proposals can have been made earlier, and I can easily believe work was going on well before Sunak was PM, but surely it is actions that count? Either he didn't want to make it work, or he couldn't get the other side to accept it, either way he didn't manage it.
Did he give May credit for getting 95% of the way there before he cut his own agreements with the EU to get over the line? The woe is me defence is not going to cut it.
My favourite post of today was the ‘reason’ that it would be “rude to ask” Ursula how we might go about extending NI’s deal to the other three constituent nations of the UK.
Still chuckling about that one.
Try reading all of the words I wrote in the order I wrote them. Bit slow, aren’t you? Let me know in future and I can rewrite my posts for you with a reading age of 8.
Comments
You're not considering the possibility that an election might be *forced*.
As for the possibilities - I had thought they were blindingly obvious.
The fact is Northern Ireland gets a, b and c and has free access to the single market. It even gets additional benefits in having locally set regulation for agrifood and healthcare. If the UK as a whole could get such a good deal I would vote for it in a heartbeat.
Because they were in some way a danger to themselves or others?
Because they watched them for a while and concluded they weren’t going back for the child?
A hundred reasons. The police are very far perfect and their actions should be reviewed frequently, but often there is a good reason.
Plus the rumour is Biden will replace Harris with Buttigieg as his VP nominee next year who would be a more formidable candidate for the Democrats in 2028 if Biden is re elected next year
A vote might well take place, but even if it is I can't see a majority coalescing around a single alternative candidate to the new SNP leader. Without a split in the SNP it needs every other MSP to agree on a single candidate. If you're relying on "there is a realistic chance that the SNP might split" then I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere. Especially as, in your last sentence, you're bullshitting again.
PCS ballot result shows 100% support for HMRC staff to strike with the turnout threshold having been met. I didn't vote myself as I don't think I received a ballot. I will check they have my correct address. The strike is due to take place on 15 March, budget day, giving members the chance to watch our favourite event of the year without having to be distracted by work. However I don't actually work Wednesdays. So I won't technically be striking or having my pay docked. So I get to be a good union member and keep the benefits, don't lose any pay and can tell everyone else that I wasn't on strike so don't blame me for xyz. Maybe it'll help to get us a pay rise too.
But it also comes with major costs.
At the end of the day the costs outweighed the benefits, so we left, despite the benefits.
Probably why they voted remain.
RDS hasn't hit back yet so is clearly keeping his options clear.
As for Biden ditching Harris, apart from that Little Pete has been seen to be useless (once again) with the East Palestine train crash, the thought of Biden replacing a Black woman with a white guy, even a gay one, is not even remotely possible. Especially as Biden relies enough on the Black vote as it is and, as a voting bloc, they are not particularly tolerant to gay people - especially one who would have replaced a Black woman.
New survey design experiments by YouGov's
@PME_Politics
demonstrate the the importance of question framing to properly measuring public opinion
See the results on leading questions and acquiescence bias in the next tweets 👇
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1630609597697343496
What on Earth can have inspired this research?
When we had our first child and my wife was on the maternity unit before going into active labour there was a lady who arrived and was put on the bed next to hers. That family tried saying to the midwives that there was a note on their file to call social services when the baby is born but its all a misunderstanding that has since been resolved so there's no need to do that. Quite rightly the midwives were being polite but having none of it.
For years they've clung to the NI dispute as their last desperate throw of the dice to wish Brexit away and now what they derided as a unicorn has come about even that has turned to dust in their mouths.
I remember it being discussed of Obama, Bush Sr and Trump, and yet in each case, the boat was not rocked.
Biden did though win suburban White graduates in 2020 who had voted for Trump in 2016 v Hillary. They are the key swing voters in the US now and Buttigieg appeals to them more than Harris
Worth noting the Democrats had a very good February with special elections. If the economy continues to improve, and inflation (and interest rates) recede, then I'm not sure that Trump is going to be in a great position against Biden in 2024.
2) ...
Edit: just realised where you are going wrong. The SNP *do not have a majority*. In fact, they have a minority. That is made a dead heat solely by one Green MP becoming the Presiding Officer. Now consider what happens if she decides not to be PO any more.
So that is four options right there for throwing everything up in the air.
The years of division and divisiness are over.
Bygones are bygones.
Welcome back to recognising the benefits of the Single Market. It’s great to have you as a brother in arms.
It might not happen. But the upsides of membership (balanced with tge otger downsides) don't to me make it worth hanging around to find out. Particularly as we were unlikely to get another chance to leave.
I shall look out for the Gold, and celebrate its lack of Ray Winstone.
Many pro-Europeans seem to be welcoming of Rishi's deal apparently as they believe it to be a repudiation of Boris, despite it being exactly what Boris proposed eight months ago.
Every Eurosceptic here seems to be welcoming it too.
And, once again, I have never once said or assumed that the SNP have been a majority.
Still chuckling about that one.
https://uk.pcmag.com/audio/145699/a-quick-listen-with-bluetooth-auracast-like-a-hotspot-but-for-audio
Since about 2014, we’ve had direct streaming from phones to hearing aids which works really well. But it has its limits - mainly that it’s 1:1 and limited to iOS/android.
Computers/tv’s/cinemas/performances/shops/customer service counters/public announcements/etc are still a right PITA for us.
Auracast has the potential to change all of this. The expensive and unreliable loop systems are finally going to be replaced with something that works.
And it’s coming this year.
Very recent technology has made deafness far less miserable and isolating. It’s an under appreciated triumph.
Ms Forbes says she 'doesn't believe any of the candidates have anything to hide'.
This is quite something.
https://twitter.com/c4ciaran/status/1630629145083273219
Despite your spin, Sunak has continued the exact same negotiations, in the same way, as Boris did.
Boris introduced the NI Protocol and said "give us this deal, or we pass the Bill".
Truss kept the Protocol on the table and said "give us this deal, or we pass the Bill".
Sunak then arrived, kept the Protocol in the Lords and said "if you give us this deal, I won't pass the Bill".
And you think the latter was "grown up" and different? Suuuuurreeee ...
https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/French-news/Brexit/French-Senator-fights-for-British-second-home-owner-rights-post-Brexit
What’s your source? I note you’ve broadened your claim from “France” to “France and Spain”.
Most Remainers like the deal because they it as ushering a new era of better cooperation between the EU and the UK.
I suspect both groups are broadly right.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1092683/british-population-in-spain-by-autonomous-community/
Not 300k per annum moving as happens the other direction.
Will backfire though. Going to end up with a whole bunch of televised hustings.
NEW THREAD
You underestimate me big time by thinking that a dumb ass like Driver could wind me up as well.
https://twitter.com/neildrysdale/status/1630644341097021451
But you can't, can you?
Proposals can have been made earlier, and I can easily believe work was going on well before Sunak was PM, but surely it is actions that count? Either he didn't want to make it work, or he couldn't get the other side to accept it, either way he didn't manage it.
Did he give May credit for getting 95% of the way there before he cut his own agreements with the EU to get over the line? The woe is me defence is not going to cut it.