Just been reading about a head teacher who killed herself in anticipation of a bad Ofsted report. This is because the school gets rated 'inadequate' if there are concerns about 'safeguarding'. Whilst safeguarding should obviously be taken seriously I feel very sorry for the people stuck in this system who get ruined when they get one of these bad reports. Not sure it is really that helpful having these rankings. It would surely be better if people just read the reports to get an idea about the school and its strengths and weaknesses, without the rather infantile system of marking that doesn't seem to exist in any other country.
There is a grim irony in this, as OFSTED do not in fact have any meaningful safeguarding processes of their own. So according to their own logic they are an inadequate organisation...
But do they have to look after children?
Presumably their staff spend rather a lot of time in places where there are a lot of children, though. But is that enough to trigger the need to safeguard, more so than (say) a delivery driver?
Safeguarding isn't just about children, but also other vulnerable people.
I am quite conflicted about it. Fears about safeguarding seem like a lot of paranoia and seems to sap the energy and spontaneity out of much social interaction. On the other hand we know that they are justified. I don't like the fact that my son's school has 2 m high anti climb fencing and you cannot access any part of the building other than a small lobby with several CCTV cameras. On the other hand, I am reassured by the same things.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
Does such a paragon exist? I don't know Scotland well enough to know if a better candidate is holding back.
In which case, the SNP insurgents have botched this as much as the establishment. It's all very well getting rid of a leader you dislike, but you do have to have an alternative who is reasonably ready-to-go who the party will accept. It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
Angus Robertson at least has a functioning brain.
He does but he's heavily compromised in the current situation.
He might be sitting it out, imagining that whoever follows Sturgeon is the Liz Truss of this particular situation, and he can put himself up once they've gone down in flames.
That does rely upon any investigations/revelations over the coming months not implicating him in any potential wrongdoing.
Can't see how he's more compromised than Yousaf, who is everything Malc said and more on current evidence.
If certain matters are examined in more depth, the SNP will be viewing 30% in the polls as a golden era. The current evidence is the tip of the iceberg.
Wow. OK.
It's impressive to think there's worse to come than fraud, embezzlement, falsification of registers and abuse of process.
Bad news for Sindy supporters.
Great news for anyone who wants the Tories out.
It's ironic that gaining seats in Scotland could be bad news for the Tories if it's part of an SNP wipeout.
I am not sure that the Conservative and Unionist party necessarily sees it that way. A recovered SLAB secures the Union pretty much indefinitely.
What makes you think that the Conservative and (Dis)Unionist cares a blind fiddler's final farwell feck about whether ANYTHING "secures the Union" for ANY length of time?
These sad days, just as GOP = Grifters On Parade, CUP = Cronies Utilizing Perks
"John Lewis considers plan to change staff-owned structure
John Lewis is considering a potential change to its employee-owned business structure, upending more than 70 years of tradition.
The group, which also owns Waitrose, is currently fully owned by its staff, who receive a share in the profits.
But in the face of tougher trading, the firm is said to be exploring the idea of selling a minority stake.
The Sunday Times, which first reported the move, said the firm hoped to raise up to £2bn.
It said the firm's chairwoman Dame Sharon White was considering a potential plan to dilute the famous partnership structure in order to invest in better technology, data analysis and Waitrose's supply chain."
It's a terrible idea tbh, hopefully the rest of the partners vote it down and also get rid of the ghastly Sharon White. She's completely out of her depth.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
Looks like SNP sub 10 seats at the next GE is a real possibility!
This just might reduce the enthusiasm for treating that election as a second quasi-referendum.
By the SNP. Not by the other parties!
Which was the fatal flaw in the Queen Fish's master plan for making next Westminster general election a "referendum" on independence? As was being pointed out to her by smarter SNPers.
Just been reading about a head teacher who killed herself in anticipation of a bad Ofsted report. This is because the school gets rated 'inadequate' if there are concerns about 'safeguarding'. Whilst safeguarding should obviously be taken seriously I feel very sorry for the people stuck in this system who get ruined when they get one of these bad reports. Not sure it is really that helpful having these rankings. It would surely be better if people just read the reports to get an idea about the school and its strengths and weaknesses, without the rather infantile system of marking that doesn't seem to exist in any other country.
There is a grim irony in this, as OFSTED do not in fact have any meaningful safeguarding processes of their own. So according to their own logic they are an inadequate organisation...
But do they have to look after children?
Presumably their staff spend rather a lot of time in places where there are a lot of children, though. But is that enough to trigger the need to safeguard, more so than (say) a delivery driver?
Yes. Because they are frequently left, unsupervised, with children by the demands of their role. And they wander around schools and other, even more sensitive places like YOI and children's homes unescorted.
However, there are some shortcomings - to put it mildly - in this process.
1) Ofsted inspectors do not have to carry standard ID. 2) Ofsted inspectors do not have to identify themselves verbally or show identification if challenged. So there is no way of telling who they are 3) Ofsted inspectors are not trained in safeguarding or GDPR by Ofsted. So there is no way of knowing whether they understand their obligations under KCSIE or GDPR. 4) Ofsted inspectors have no whistleblowing procedure for reporting any lapses. The only thing that can be done is to escalate to the Head, who may then include it in their feedback form on the inspection process. 5) Ofsted inspectors, although they are not in fact mostly working full time for Ofsted, are not obliged to register for the update service. So their DBS checks are usually out of date.
Which may explain how a former headteacher in Staffordshire - I won't say whom - was still working for Ofsted after being fired from a previous role for a safeguarding breach, proceeded to commit a further breach and is yet somehow still working for Ofsted.
Eh!? So any pervert could rock up and claim to be an Osted inspector if found wandering near the changing rooms or playing field?! Or even not bother at all but carry a clipboard with some obvious Ofsted bumf.
Alternatively the heidie has to risk phoning up Plod and upsetting the inspector, if the inspector really is one.
The Toreis have been going on and on and on about the risks allegedly and specifically posed by self identifying people specifically when it comes to gender. Yet they permit this ...?
Looks like SNP sub 10 seats at the next GE is a real possibility!
This just might reduce the enthusiasm for treating that election as a second quasi-referendum.
By the SNP. Not by the other parties!
Which was the fatal flaw in the Queen Fish's master plan for making next Westminster general election a "referendum" on independence? As was being pointed out to her by smarter SNPers.
I think the fatal flaw with it is that it forces SNP voters who don't actually want independence but do want to have a grump about England, out of the voting coalition. How many of these there are is unknown, but I think 'alot'.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
1) won’t happen - there is more than enough offshore wind potential for both countries. The U.K. build out is largely constrained by building the turbines and installing them.
Piping drinking water any distance is very expensive. Desalination would be cheaper.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
Does such a paragon exist? I don't know Scotland well enough to know if a better candidate is holding back.
In which case, the SNP insurgents have botched this as much as the establishment. It's all very well getting rid of a leader you dislike, but you do have to have an alternative who is reasonably ready-to-go who the party will accept. It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
Angus Robertson at least has a functioning brain.
He does but he's heavily compromised in the current situation.
He might be sitting it out, imagining that whoever follows Sturgeon is the Liz Truss of this particular situation, and he can put himself up once they've gone down in flames.
That does rely upon any investigations/revelations over the coming months not implicating him in any potential wrongdoing.
Can't see how he's more compromised than Yousaf, who is everything Malc said and more on current evidence.
If certain matters are examined in more depth, the SNP will be viewing 30% in the polls as a golden era. The current evidence is the tip of the iceberg.
Wow. OK.
It's impressive to think there's worse to come than fraud, embezzlement, falsification of registers and abuse of process.
Bad news for Sindy supporters.
Great news for anyone who wants the Tories out.
It's ironic that gaining seats in Scotland could be bad news for the Tories if it's part of an SNP wipeout.
I am not sure that the Conservative and Unionist party necessarily sees it that way. A recovered SLAB secures the Union pretty much indefinitely.
What makes you think that the Conservative and (Dis)Unionist cares a blind fiddler's final farwell feck about whether ANYTHING "secures the Union" for ANY length of time?
These sad days, just as GOP = Grifters On Parade, CUP = Cronies Utilizing Perks
Again, you hit the nail on the head. Trad Tories like HYUFD would considers it imperative that someone (other than him) die in the proverbial ditch to defend the Union. The Tory libertarian tendency, exemplified by Bart, couldn’t give a flying whatchamacallit of Scotland, NI, and (for all I know) Wales became independent or Provinces of Canada.
Looks like SNP sub 10 seats at the next GE is a real possibility!
This just might reduce the enthusiasm for treating that election as a second quasi-referendum.
By the SNP. Not by the other parties!
Which was the fatal flaw in the Queen Fish's master plan for making next Westminster general election a "referendum" on independence? As was being pointed out to her by smarter SNPers.
I think the fatal flaw with it is that it forces SNP voters who don't actually want independence but do want to have a grump about England, out of the voting coalition. How many of these there are is unknown, but I think 'alot'.
You are conflating 'England' with 'the people who keep deciding politics for us in ways we don't like'. Not the same thing at all.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
England has more offshore wind than Scotland - I think this was established when it was spoken about before. I am also not sure how possible it would be to become 'reliant' on something inherently unreliable. Oil is another matter entirely, but the SNP and the Unionist parties are both complicit in the loony clampdown on that resource in favour of imported oil.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
(1) is based upon another lie by the Scottish Government that Scotland has special advantages in wind power. It doesn't. The 2 largest offshore wind farms in the world are slowly coming online at Dogger Bank. Offshore wind requires not just wind but a shallow sea on which the turbines can be secured. Scotland doesn't really have that. So there is plenty of wind but its expensive and the transportation costs to anywhere likely to want to use it are high. Scotland is more likely to find itself dependent on English wind energy than the other way around.
I agree about immigration but we first need to create the jobs, housing and opportunities that are going to entice people here.
Looks like SNP sub 10 seats at the next GE is a real possibility!
This just might reduce the enthusiasm for treating that election as a second quasi-referendum.
By the SNP. Not by the other parties!
Which was the fatal flaw in the Queen Fish's master plan for making next Westminster general election a "referendum" on independence? As was being pointed out to her by smarter SNPers.
I think the fatal flaw with it is that it forces SNP voters who don't actually want independence but do want to have a grump about England, out of the voting coalition. How many of these there are is unknown, but I think 'alot'.
You are conflating 'England' with 'the people who keep deciding politics for us in ways we don't like'. Not the same thing at all.
The sadly departed Mr Dickson took a different view.
BREAKING: Switzerland is considering a full or partial nationalization of Credit Suisse as the only other viable option outside a UBS takeover
Thatsl’a what they should do. UBS has worked very hard to fix itself over the last 10+ years. Don’t ruin it now
They shouldn't nationalise it. Guarantee deposit holder and let everyone else get burned. It's time to stop socialising losses in the banking sector. Either these mega banks can stand on their own two feet or they can't. If they can't then they should go under and the rest can change their business models to adjust for needing to hold much more capital. Bond holders can go sing for their money they went in knowing the risks of lending to Credit Suisse. If we have another round of bank bailouts it will end terribly for both taxpayer's and the industry. The banks have had 15 years to fix their balance shees with implicit state support that they chose not to is on them.
The EC really needs to reconsider their stance on the latest Basel capital requirements, they're attempting to dodge them on a technicality but we're seeing what happens when insufficiently capitalised banks are put to the test. The BoE is right to push it through and I feel that they have been vindicated over the last couple of weeks.
The quality of the puns is about 5/10 on the @ydoethur scale
Far too early to know what will happen in Scotland. The SNP have just started a game of 52 card pickup.
Edit: the pointers to what happen next will be a possible rerun of the leadership election and/or one of the other scandals popping open
If either of those happen, then the SNP will take permanent damage, I think.
Depends if next leader does the right thing and hhas a night of the long knives, all dross kicked to the kerb till they can be permanently dumped. If that happens and they dump greens , start talking to other independence parties then likely to be onward and upward. If Useless they are done for.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
(1) is based upon another lie by the Scottish Government that Scotland has special advantages in wind power. It doesn't. The 2 largest offshore wind farms in the world are slowly coming online at Dogger Bank. Offshore wind requires not just wind but a shallow sea on which the turbines can be secured. Scotland doesn't really have that. So there is plenty of wind but its expensive and the transportation costs to anywhere likely to want to use it are high. Scotland is more likely to find itself dependent on English wind energy than the other way around.
I agree about immigration but we first need to create the jobs, housing and opportunities that are going to entice people here.
I do dream of a Scotland of 20 million, 30 million Scots! Immigration is a requirement to unlock the economic potential of Scotland but I don't think it'll be a popular proposition. In the Highlands I've heard, with my own ears, people announcing to crowded rooms that Highland kids going away to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen to Uni is bad because of the loss of 'culture'. What such people would think about the impact of large-scale immigration, I shudder to think.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
(1) is based upon another lie by the Scottish Government that Scotland has special advantages in wind power. It doesn't. The 2 largest offshore wind farms in the world are slowly coming online at Dogger Bank. Offshore wind requires not just wind but a shallow sea on which the turbines can be secured. Scotland doesn't really have that. So there is plenty of wind but its expensive and the transportation costs to anywhere likely to want to use it are high. Scotland is more likely to find itself dependent on English wind energy than the other way around.
I agree about immigration but we first need to create the jobs, housing and opportunities that are going to entice people here.
Even if (1) isn't true, I'm really surprised that the candidates haven't been talking about it. That would be the aspirational, "hope" position. The SNP membership would lap it up, I would think.
And on (3), Sunak has come out with the expansion of ELC in England which the SNP must replicate at the very least to keep up.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
Does such a paragon exist? I don't know Scotland well enough to know if a better candidate is holding back.
In which case, the SNP insurgents have botched this as much as the establishment. It's all very well getting rid of a leader you dislike, but you do have to have an alternative who is reasonably ready-to-go who the party will accept. It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
The alternatives have skeletons rattling about hence they had to rely on Useless. More causalties are on the way even if Useless wins and slows it done for a short while. No-one here has ever questioned why Macbeth did not run.
Re: the current state (of incompetence) of the Scottish National Party, as I opined previous thread, looks to me like the SNP under the leadership of current Queenfish of Caledonia, is doing a tribute act by impersonating the Kingfish of Louisiana, Huey Long - in drag?
Note that when Huey was removed from the scene in 1935 by an assassins bullet - or more likely, by bullet fired by one of his bodyguards that ricocheted - the once totally dominate Long organization fell apart in Louisiana. The fed already had Huey & his henchpeople on their radar screen, for variety of reasons of which Long's looming challenge to FDR, from populist left, for 1936 presidential nomination.
Within a few years, the Longite governor was in federal prison, Huey's handpicked president of LSU was in state prison, and an anti-Long candidate won the governorship.
The Long faction of the Democratic party survived, and even won the governorship a few times, most notably under Huey's brother, Earl Long aka "Uncle Earl" and Edwin Edwards aka "The Cajun Fox" but it was never the same as when the Kingfish ruled the roost . . . or rather the swamp.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
David, apart from the imaginary subsidies for Ebnglish spending not bad. How do you expect Scotland to be able to progress when England decides the budget and controls most of the powers , just impossible to flourish with London's dead hand robbing us putting imaginary Scottish borrowing onto us.
Hat tip to Wings over Scotland but this quotation from 1984 where Winston Smith is revising the output of boots is just too perfect for the SNP's membership numbers:
"In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain."
That's quite good - but I hope they resisted the "warning not an instruction manual" prefix.
It's so hard not to. Ask those morons in Florida what they think about a Handmaid's Tale as they build Gilead, one idiocy at a time.
Ghastly. People talk about what a grim choice for America if it's Biden Trump again but imo that's 10 times more true for the GOP if the nomination really does boil down to Trump or DeSantis. C'mon you RINOs! Somebody emerge please.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
Does such a paragon exist? I don't know Scotland well enough to know if a better candidate is holding back.
In which case, the SNP insurgents have botched this as much as the establishment. It's all very well getting rid of a leader you dislike, but you do have to have an alternative who is reasonably ready-to-go who the party will accept. It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
Angus Robertson at least has a functioning brain.
He does but he's heavily compromised in the current situation.
He might be sitting it out, imagining that whoever follows Sturgeon is the Liz Truss of this particular situation, and he can put himself up once they've gone down in flames.
That does rely upon any investigations/revelations over the coming months not implicating him in any potential wrongdoing.
Can't see how he's more compromised than Yousaf, who is everything Malc said and more on current evidence.
If certain matters are examined in more depth, the SNP will be viewing 30% in the polls as a golden era. The current evidence is the tip of the iceberg.
Wow. OK.
It's impressive to think there's worse to come than fraud, embezzlement, falsification of registers and abuse of process.
Bad news for Sindy supporters.
Great news for anyone who wants the Tories out.
It's ironic that gaining seats in Scotland could be bad news for the Tories if it's part of an SNP wipeout.
I am not sure that the Conservative and Unionist party necessarily sees it that way. A recovered SLAB secures the Union pretty much indefinitely.
Going to be some red faces (not labour ones I may add ) come the election
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
(1) is based upon another lie by the Scottish Government that Scotland has special advantages in wind power. It doesn't. The 2 largest offshore wind farms in the world are slowly coming online at Dogger Bank. Offshore wind requires not just wind but a shallow sea on which the turbines can be secured. Scotland doesn't really have that. So there is plenty of wind but its expensive and the transportation costs to anywhere likely to want to use it are high. Scotland is more likely to find itself dependent on English wind energy than the other way around.
I agree about immigration but we first need to create the jobs, housing and opportunities that are going to entice people here.
Even if (1) isn't true, I'm really surprised that the candidates haven't been talking about it. That would be the aspirational, "hope" position. The SNP membership would lap it up, I would think.
And on (3), Sunak has come out with the expansion of ELC in England which the SNP must replicate at the very least to keep up.
Talk about it to much and someone would point out that the report was another bizarre lie.
Just been reading about a head teacher who killed herself in anticipation of a bad Ofsted report. This is because the school gets rated 'inadequate' if there are concerns about 'safeguarding'. Whilst safeguarding should obviously be taken seriously I feel very sorry for the people stuck in this system who get ruined when they get one of these bad reports. Not sure it is really that helpful having these rankings. It would surely be better if people just read the reports to get an idea about the school and its strengths and weaknesses, without the rather infantile system of marking that doesn't seem to exist in any other country.
There is a grim irony in this, as OFSTED do not in fact have any meaningful safeguarding processes of their own. So according to their own logic they are an inadequate organisation...
But do they have to look after children?
Presumably their staff spend rather a lot of time in places where there are a lot of children, though. But is that enough to trigger the need to safeguard, more so than (say) a delivery driver?
Yes. Because they are frequently left, unsupervised, with children by the demands of their role. And they wander around schools and other, even more sensitive places like YOI and children's homes unescorted.
However, there are some shortcomings - to put it mildly - in this process.
1) Ofsted inspectors do not have to carry standard ID. 2) Ofsted inspectors do not have to identify themselves verbally or show identification if challenged. So there is no way of telling who they are 3) Ofsted inspectors are not trained in safeguarding or GDPR by Ofsted. So there is no way of knowing whether they understand their obligations under KCSIE or GDPR. 4) Ofsted inspectors have no whistleblowing procedure for reporting any lapses. The only thing that can be done is to escalate to the Head, who may then include it in their feedback form on the inspection process. 5) Ofsted inspectors, although they are not in fact mostly working full time for Ofsted, are not obliged to register for the update service. So their DBS checks are usually out of date.
Which may explain how a former headteacher in Staffordshire - I won't say whom - was still working for Ofsted after being fired from a previous role for a safeguarding breach, proceeded to commit a further breach and is yet somehow still working for Ofsted.
Eh!? So any pervert could rock up and claim to be an Osted inspector if found wandering near the changing rooms or playing field?! Or even not bother at all but carry a clipboard with some obvious Ofsted bumf.
Alternatively the heidie has to risk phoning up Plod and upsetting the inspector, if the inspector really is one.
The Toreis have been going on and on and on about the risks allegedly and specifically posed by self identifying people specifically when it comes to gender. Yet they permit this ...?
This is why they have to be booked in in advance.
But once inside the school, you are right, there is no effective way to check who they are.
And even if you do know, heads are for some reason reluctant to report them.
But what do you expect from an organisation led by a woman who says girls think sexting shouldn't be seen as a safeguarding matter?
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
England has more offshore wind than Scotland - I think this was established when it was spoken about before. I am also not sure how possible it would be to become 'reliant' on something inherently unreliable. Oil is another matter entirely, but the SNP and the Unionist parties are both complicit in the loony clampdown on that resource in favour of imported oil.
Re: the current state (of incompetence) of the Scottish National Party, as I opined previous thread, looks to me like the SNP under the leadership of current Queenfish of Caledonia, is doing a tribute act by impersonating the Kingfish of Louisiana, Huey Long - in drag?
Note that when Huey was removed from the scene in 1935 by an assassins bullet - or more likely, by bullet fired by one of his bodyguards that ricocheted - the once totally dominate Long organization fell apart in Louisiana. The fed already had Huey & his henchpeople on their radar screen, for variety of reasons of which Long's looming challenge to FDR, from populist left, for 1936 presidential nomination.
Within a few years, the Longite governor was in federal prison, Huey's handpicked president of LSU was in state prison, and an anti-Long candidate won the governorship.
The Long faction of the Democratic party survived, and even won the governorship a few times, most notably under Huey's brother, Earl Long aka "Uncle Earl" and Edwin Edwards aka "The Cajun Fox" but it was never the same as when the Kingfish ruled the roost . . . or rather the swamp.
Looking in from the outside (in both cases) parallels between the SNP in Scotland and Democrat machine politics in the US do begin to be appearing.
FPT: On hand washing in hospitals: Some years ago I read that getting American doctors to wash their hands between patients was enough of a problem in pediatric wards that some hospitals had enlisted the children. They were coached to ask the doctor when he (or she) came in if they had washed their hands.
Don't know how successful that was, but was disturbed to learn that some hospitals thought it necessary.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Just 10 in over two months? (Just kidding!)
Hope you are NOT one of those joggers, who uses their headlamps to shine bright lights into faces of oncoming pedestrian (in more ways than one) - before dawn?
Especially galling when done on a street light reasonably well by street lamps!
BTW, do you track you runs via GPS? Friend of mine did that with long-distance bicycle trip, and results were very interesting to view on resulting maps (done I think via google earth) including elevation gained/lost, and occasional pics & selfies shown at locations they were taken.
Though reckon you may NOT want to slow down for the latter.
Anyway, best of British - and Irish - luck re: your personal quest!
Though perhaps you MIGHT consider employing it for some social good, as in the following clip?
This is about thirty years old, back when Bill Nye aka "The Science Guy" was just a local Seattle TV star; Dick's Drive-in, a local chain, is still a Seattle institution, the one shown, on Broadway on Capitol Hill, remains virtually unchanged. Except for (one hopes) the fry oil.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Anywhere near Twinwoods?
On topic
TBF SKS does look like a man with a thistle stuck up his arse.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Anywhere near Twinwoods?
No, I didn't get that far north. The furthest north I got was Bedford railway station.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Anywhere near Twinwoods?
On topic
TBF SKS does look like a man with a thistle stuck up his arse.
Re: the current state (of incompetence) of the Scottish National Party, as I opined previous thread, looks to me like the SNP under the leadership of current Queenfish of Caledonia, is doing a tribute act by impersonating the Kingfish of Louisiana, Huey Long - in drag?
Note that when Huey was removed from the scene in 1935 by an assassins bullet - or more likely, by bullet fired by one of his bodyguards that ricocheted - the once totally dominate Long organization fell apart in Louisiana. The fed already had Huey & his henchpeople on their radar screen, for variety of reasons of which Long's looming challenge to FDR, from populist left, for 1936 presidential nomination.
Within a few years, the Longite governor was in federal prison, Huey's handpicked president of LSU was in state prison, and an anti-Long candidate won the governorship.
The Long faction of the Democratic party survived, and even won the governorship a few times, most notably under Huey's brother, Earl Long aka "Uncle Earl" and Edwin Edwards aka "The Cajun Fox" but it was never the same as when the Kingfish ruled the roost . . . or rather the swamp.
Looking in from the outside (in both cases) parallels between the SNP in Scotland and Democrat machine politics in the US do begin to be appearing.
Classic US political machines were NOT restricted to Democratic Party, not hardly.
For example, Republican Party machines that dominated Philadelphia and also Pennsylvania for many decades in late 19th - early 20th centuries (Vare, Quay, Penrose) Also Chicago (Big Bill Thompson) and upstate New York (Tom Platt aka The Easy Boss).
Ditto much of downstate Illinois, up until about half century or so ago. For example, allegations of vote rigging by Daley machine in Cook County are part of popular culture re; 1960 presidential election. FAR less known, are equally plausible charges of vote rigging by Republican machine in many, albeit smaller, counties in the Land of Lincoln.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Anywhere near Twinwoods?
On topic
TBF SKS does look like a man with a thistle stuck up his arse.
The monomanias of some on here are fascinating
One PBer's monomania, is another PBers message discipline.
Re: the current state (of incompetence) of the Scottish National Party, as I opined previous thread, looks to me like the SNP under the leadership of current Queenfish of Caledonia, is doing a tribute act by impersonating the Kingfish of Louisiana, Huey Long - in drag?
Note that when Huey was removed from the scene in 1935 by an assassins bullet - or more likely, by bullet fired by one of his bodyguards that ricocheted - the once totally dominate Long organization fell apart in Louisiana. The fed already had Huey & his henchpeople on their radar screen, for variety of reasons of which Long's looming challenge to FDR, from populist left, for 1936 presidential nomination.
Within a few years, the Longite governor was in federal prison, Huey's handpicked president of LSU was in state prison, and an anti-Long candidate won the governorship.
The Long faction of the Democratic party survived, and even won the governorship a few times, most notably under Huey's brother, Earl Long aka "Uncle Earl" and Edwin Edwards aka "The Cajun Fox" but it was never the same as when the Kingfish ruled the roost . . . or rather the swamp.
Looking in from the outside (in both cases) parallels between the SNP in Scotland and Democrat machine politics in the US do begin to be appearing.
Classic US political machines were NOT restricted to Democratic Party, not hardly.
For example, Republican Party machines that dominated Philadelphia and also Pennsylvania for many decades in late 19th - early 20th centuries (Vare, Quay, Penrose) Also Chicago (Big Bill Thompson) and upstate New York (Tom Platt aka The Easy Boss).
Ditto much of downstate Illinois, up until about half century or so ago. For example, allegations of vote rigging by Daley machine in Cook County are part of popular culture re; 1960 presidential election. FAR less known, are equally plausible charges of vote rigging by Republican machine in many, albeit smaller, counties in the Land of Lincoln.
Ah! Apologies. The one most people over here have heard of is Tammany Hall of course, that’s where my misapprehension comes from.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
England has more offshore wind than Scotland - I think this was established when it was spoken about before. I am also not sure how possible it would be to become 'reliant' on something inherently unreliable. Oil is another matter entirely, but the SNP and the Unionist parties are both complicit in the loony clampdown on that resource in favour of imported oil.
It may do now Sturgeon has gone....
On the SNP Government side, I hope so. If Forbes gets in I foresee a more constructive approach. On the UK Government's side the stupidity persists sadly.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Anywhere near Twinwoods?
On topic
TBF SKS does look like a man with a thistle stuck up his arse.
The monomanias of some on here are fascinating
One PBer's monomania, is another PBers message discipline.
Not entirely. If some of us were to stand for election in the future ...
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
England has more offshore wind than Scotland - I think this was established when it was spoken about before. I am also not sure how possible it would be to become 'reliant' on something inherently unreliable. Oil is another matter entirely, but the SNP and the Unionist parties are both complicit in the loony clampdown on that resource in favour of imported oil.
It may do now Sturgeon has gone....
On the SNP Government side, I hope so. If Forbes gets in I foresee a more constructive approach. On the UK Government's side the stupidity persists sadly.
Difficult to be constructive, though, if nobody speaks to you: vide Mr Johnson.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him wining the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
I agree. The smell is unmistakable. He's going 'off'. We are into the Decline & Fall phase of Donald Trump.
In one sense he's right. Forcing all parents into work, which barely covers cost of childcare, because economy leads to unhappy families. On the other hand. He doesn't seem to rate men's ability to be the stay at home one.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
It was a surprise to see that recent video of Trump, espousing wholly counter-mainstream views - not that I was expecting him to reach across the divide, but it was stark.
On the other hand, his autocue reading was fairly impressive - no dodderiness and he would probably give a greater impression of youthful vigour during the campaign than Biden.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Anywhere near Twinwoods?
On topic
TBF SKS does look like a man with a thistle stuck up his arse.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
Back in 2020, it was Black primary voters in states early in the nominating process, in particular in South Carolina primary, that gave the signal to other Democratic primary voters, mostly White, that Joe Biden was the horse to bet on, to unseat Donald Trump.
Could it be, that in 2024, it will be core, conservative, base Republican voters, possibly evangelicals, who will give the signal in early contests, between Trump and Ron DeSantis?
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
England has more offshore wind than Scotland - I think this was established when it was spoken about before. I am also not sure how possible it would be to become 'reliant' on something inherently unreliable. Oil is another matter entirely, but the SNP and the Unionist parties are both complicit in the loony clampdown on that resource in favour of imported oil.
It may do now Sturgeon has gone....
On the SNP Government side, I hope so. If Forbes gets in I foresee a more constructive approach. On the UK Government's side the stupidity persists sadly.
Difficult to be constructive, though, if nobody speaks to you: vide Mr Johnson.
I don't mean a more constructive approach to dealings with HMG, (though there probably will be) I mean constructive toward North Sea Oil.
Regarding the PostScript in the thread header. Don't worry - there's more chance of Boris Johnson becoming 47th President of the USA than Humza Yousaf negotiating Scottish independence.
Having said that, I have a feeling he may still win. The one thing I do know about SNP members is the huge pride that they took in Nicola Sturgeon. They will be devastated at the trashing of her reputation. This sentiment is unlikely to recommend Kate Forbes to them even though - obviously - she is streets ahead of Humza as a credible leader. She may win, but it surely isn't a slam dunk.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him wining the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
I agree. The smell is unmistakable. He's going 'off'. We are into the Decline & Fall phase of Donald Trump.
In one sense he's right. Forcing all parents into work, which barely covers cost of childcare, because economy leads to unhappy families. On the other hand. He doesn't seem to rate men's ability to be the stay at home one.
Regarding the PostScript in the thread header. Don't worry - there's more chance of Boris Johnson becoming 47th President of the USA than Humza Yousaf negotiating Scottish independence.
Having said that, I have a feeling he may still win. The one thing I do know about SNP members is the huge pride that they took in Nicola Sturgeon. They will be devastated at the trashing of her reputation. This sentiment is unlikely to recommend Kate Forbes to them even though - obviously - she is streets ahead of Humza as a credible leader. She may win, but it surely isn't a slam dunk.
BTW for any PBer struggling to keep up with the various detonations that have marked the SNP leadership campaign (so far) this day-by-day summary is very useful. Ash Regan's design for the new Scottish £2 note is a corker (a unicorn!) and I had missed the commitment from all three candidates to attend an Indy demo rather than the coronation. Will be interesting to see how whoever wins, wriggle out of that one.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
Hopefully you're right. But expect the worst seems to be best.
In one sense he's right. Forcing all parents into work, which barely covers cost of childcare, because economy leads to unhappy families. On the other hand. He doesn't seem to rate men's ability to be the stay at home one.
Regarding the PostScript in the thread header. Don't worry - there's more chance of Boris Johnson becoming 47th President of the USA than Humza Yousaf negotiating Scottish independence.
Having said that, I have a feeling he may still win. The one thing I do know about SNP members is the huge pride that they took in Nicola Sturgeon. They will be devastated at the trashing of her reputation. This sentiment is unlikely to recommend Kate Forbes to them even though - obviously - she is streets ahead of Humza as a credible leader. She may win, but it surely isn't a slam dunk.
I'd also note that the vast majority of people would have voted prior to the fiasco regarding the membership numbers. And as you said, with membership having declined by about 30,000 in the last 2 years, what's left is likely very-pro Sturgeon.
Regarding the PostScript in the thread header. Don't worry - there's more chance of Boris Johnson becoming 47th President of the USA than Humza Yousaf negotiating Scottish independence.
Having said that, I have a feeling he may still win. The one thing I do know about SNP members is the huge pride that they took in Nicola Sturgeon. They will be devastated at the trashing of her reputation. This sentiment is unlikely to recommend Kate Forbes to them even though - obviously - she is streets ahead of Humza as a credible leader. She may win, but it surely isn't a slam dunk.
Certainly neither Forbes nor Yousaf are anywhere near as effective as Sturgeon was. Forbes is competent but way right of the SNP's core vote ideologically on everything except independence while Yousaf is ideologically closer to the SNP's core vote but incompetent
In one sense he's right. Forcing all parents into work, which barely covers cost of childcare, because economy leads to unhappy families. On the other hand. He doesn't seem to rate men's ability to be the stay at home one.
Though at the end of day it hardly matters when supporting a family is being made impossible for increasing numbers of couples. Consider:
* Both parents are desperate to get back into work and dump the tiny infant in a nursery as soon as possible because they can't afford to live otherwise, except... * The nurseries are now so expensive that it costs most of what one parent is earning to pay the fees in the first place, and that's... * Assuming that a nursery can even be found in the first place, because the Government pays out an absolute pittance to fund these so-called "free" childcare hours, which means that the nurseries have to cut their capacity because staff keep moving to better paid jobs at Aldi, or they simply fold
This is without getting into the thorny issue of whether or not putting preschool infants into nurseries is actually doing them any good.
Ultimately it's all down to the usual issue that blights most people's lives in this country: working people's incomes are taxed into the ground so that the asset wealth of the rich and the retired can be left well alone, and the state pension triple lock (along with the NHS, which spends nearly half of all its resources on the over 65s,) can continue to eat an ever greater share of national income, without anyone's precious houses getting taxed any more to cover the cost. Meanwhile, things like childcare that aren't priorities for old people either aren't done at all, or are done on the cheap, with predictable consequences.
Forget all the guff in the latest Budget. By the time this Government leaves office, there will be fewer nursery places left and they'll be even more expensive. Watch.
In one sense he's right. Forcing all parents into work, which barely covers cost of childcare, because economy leads to unhappy families. On the other hand. He doesn't seem to rate men's ability to be the stay at home one.
Though at the end of day it hardly matters when supporting a family is being made impossible for increasing numbers of couples. Consider:
* Both parents are desperate to get back into work and dump the tiny infant in a nursery as soon as possible because they can't afford to live otherwise, except... * The nurseries are now so expensive that it costs most of what one parent is earning to pay the fees in the first place, and that's... * Assuming that a nursery can even be found in the first place, because the Government pays out an absolute pittance to fund these so-called "free" childcare hours, which means that the nurseries have to cut their capacity because staff keep moving to better paid jobs at Aldi, or they simply fold
This is without getting into the thorny issue of whether or not putting preschool infants into nurseries is actually doing them any good.
Ultimately it's all down to the usual issue that blights most people's lives in this country: working people's incomes are taxed into the ground so that the asset wealth of the rich and the retired can be left well alone, and the state pension triple lock (along with the NHS, which spends nearly half of all its resources on the over 65s,) can continue to eat an ever greater share of national income, without anyone's precious houses getting taxed any more to cover the cost. Meanwhile, things like childcare that aren't priorities for old people either aren't done at all, or are done on the cheap, with predictable consequences.
Forget all the guff in the latest Budget. By the time this Government leaves office, there will be fewer nursery places left and they'll be even more expensive. Watch.
In oticed this Graun piece as well, which is also worried.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
Hopefully you're right. But expect the worst seems to be best.
Trump's Social Media seems increasingly deranged. It is America though, so quite possible that the deluded narcissist wins.
F1: bit of a wet pants, safety first hedge but the weekend was still nicely green. Been a rather nice start to the year, although historically that has led to tips quickly falling off a cliff.
Regarding the PostScript in the thread header. Don't worry - there's more chance of Boris Johnson becoming 47th President of the USA than Humza Yousaf negotiating Scottish independence.
Having said that, I have a feeling he may still win. The one thing I do know about SNP members is the huge pride that they took in Nicola Sturgeon. They will be devastated at the trashing of her reputation. This sentiment is unlikely to recommend Kate Forbes to them even though - obviously - she is streets ahead of Humza as a credible leader. She may win, but it surely isn't a slam dunk.
I'd also note that the vast majority of people would have voted prior to the fiasco regarding the membership numbers. And as you said, with membership having declined by about 30,000 in the last 2 years, what's left is likely very-pro Sturgeon.
The membership may be harder to read than that. Yes, some will have departed (either through straightforward disillusionment or to join Alba) because they are fed up with the lack of delivery on independence, but the bulk of them - just as in all other political parties - will have been inactive anyway. A lot of the other losses will therefore be down to lack of commitment, or paying the fees being a low priority against a backdrop of straitened financial circumstances for many.
It's entirely possible that the silent majority of SNP members aren't particular pro-Sturgeon at all, they're just pro-independence - and could just as easily conclude that a change of approach with Forbes is preferable to more of the same with Yousaf. We just don't know.
Regarding the PostScript in the thread header. Don't worry - there's more chance of Boris Johnson becoming 47th President of the USA than Humza Yousaf negotiating Scottish independence.
Having said that, I have a feeling he may still win. The one thing I do know about SNP members is the huge pride that they took in Nicola Sturgeon. They will be devastated at the trashing of her reputation. This sentiment is unlikely to recommend Kate Forbes to them even though - obviously - she is streets ahead of Humza as a credible leader. She may win, but it surely isn't a slam dunk.
I'd also note that the vast majority of people would have voted prior to the fiasco regarding the membership numbers. And as you said, with membership having declined by about 30,000 in the last 2 years, what's left is likely very-pro Sturgeon.
The membership may be harder to read than that. Yes, some will have departed (either through straightforward disillusionment or to join Alba) because they are fed up with the lack of delivery on independence, but the bulk of them - just as in all other political parties - will have been inactive anyway. A lot of the other losses will therefore be down to lack of commitment, or paying the fees being a low priority against a backdrop of straitened financial circumstances for many.
It's entirely possible that the silent majority of SNP members aren't particular pro-Sturgeon at all, they're just pro-independence - and could just as easily conclude that a change of approach with Forbes is preferable to more of the same with Yousaf. We just don't know.
Absolutely right. A lot of SNP members joined *before* the rapprochement with the Greens and the shift to a high priorityy for their policies. And as for recenty years, if you are pro-indy and keen on the SGP type tduff you are just as likely to join the SGs anyway - they are now in government, too, and voting for them at Holyrood doesn't have the penalties Westminster style voting does.
F1: bit of a wet pants, safety first hedge but the weekend was still nicely green. Been a rather nice start to the year, although historically that has led to tips quickly falling off a cliff.
Russell’s suggestion that RB will, barring mechanical failure, win every race this year is looking far less unlikely than when he made it.
The fundamental problem, as I see it, is about a lack of a democratic mandate.
Let the electorate decide if your faith / how you relate your faith to politics - is problematic. Playing the victim, as Forbes does here, is pathetic.
Any change of FM/PM should trigger an election, imo.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Old Warden is a wonderful place to spend a day, the most fantastic collection of old planes, most of which are maintained in working order.
Mr. B, I did have a tiny bet on Verstappen winning 15+ at... 3.5 or something like that. Could come off.
Perez was impressive, though. The safety car robbed him of circa 20-25s advantage over Verstappen but the Dutchman couldn't close the gap. Street circuits are the Mexican's natural habitat, though. If he does something like that at places like Spa or Interlagos that's another kettle of fish.
Red Bull are in a league of one, currently. The advantage is almost comical.
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Old Warden is a wonderful place to spend a day, the most fantastic collection of old planes, most of which are maintained in working order.
Regarding the PostScript in the thread header. Don't worry - there's more chance of Boris Johnson becoming 47th President of the USA than Humza Yousaf negotiating Scottish independence.
Having said that, I have a feeling he may still win. The one thing I do know about SNP members is the huge pride that they took in Nicola Sturgeon. They will be devastated at the trashing of her reputation. This sentiment is unlikely to recommend Kate Forbes to them even though - obviously - she is streets ahead of Humza as a credible leader. She may win, but it surely isn't a slam dunk.
I'd also note that the vast majority of people would have voted prior to the fiasco regarding the membership numbers. And as you said, with membership having declined by about 30,000 in the last 2 years, what's left is likely very-pro Sturgeon.
As a stranger from an even stranger land, have long thought that, under parliamentary systems modeled on The Mother of Parliaments - and also under Mother herself - the mechanism for nominating/selecting party candidates is very problematically.
With the basic problem being that plaguing party precinct caucuses in the US: very small effective electorates in relationship to the number of eligible voters. Which by definition increase the clout of participants but NOT their representative character. Or horse sense. Hard to have even the wisdom of crowd, when you ain't got anything close to a crowd.
This basic theoretical point, amplified by practical education in school of political hard knocks, was the impetus a dozen decades ago, for Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, to call for replacing the smoke-filled rooms of party caucuses and conventions, with the innovation of the PRIMARY, open to eligible voters, and far less susceptible to machine or other organized manipulation.
Fighting Bob not only called for it, he led and won the fight for the voter primary. Which did NOT result in paradise on earth. But which was a major improvement, for Wisconsin and beyond.
In one sense he's right. Forcing all parents into work, which barely covers cost of childcare, because economy leads to unhappy families. On the other hand. He doesn't seem to rate men's ability to be the stay at home one.
Though at the end of day it hardly matters when supporting a family is being made impossible for increasing numbers of couples. Consider:
* Both parents are desperate to get back into work and dump the tiny infant in a nursery as soon as possible because they can't afford to live otherwise, except... * The nurseries are now so expensive that it costs most of what one parent is earning to pay the fees in the first place, and that's... * Assuming that a nursery can even be found in the first place, because the Government pays out an absolute pittance to fund these so-called "free" childcare hours, which means that the nurseries have to cut their capacity because staff keep moving to better paid jobs at Aldi, or they simply fold
This is without getting into the thorny issue of whether or not putting preschool infants into nurseries is actually doing them any good.
Ultimately it's all down to the usual issue that blights most people's lives in this country: working people's incomes are taxed into the ground so that the asset wealth of the rich and the retired can be left well alone, and the state pension triple lock (along with the NHS, which spends nearly half of all its resources on the over 65s,) can continue to eat an ever greater share of national income, without anyone's precious houses getting taxed any more to cover the cost. Meanwhile, things like childcare that aren't priorities for old people either aren't done at all, or are done on the cheap, with predictable consequences.
Forget all the guff in the latest Budget. By the time this Government leaves office, there will be fewer nursery places left and they'll be even more expensive. Watch.
In noticed this Graun piece as well, which is also worried.
Indeed. I have an aunt and a cousin who both work as childminders and they're both livid. To summarise, cousin agreed that parents of young children need help, but pointed out that childminders need more than £4-something an hour or else it will be impossible for them to make ends meet, and they'll give up.
The entire policy is an exercise in extreme cynicism. It will fail, and Hunt knows it will fail. It's a PR exercise. It's being done to pretend that they care.
FPT: I doubt that I have persuaded many of you, but I will repeat my belief that Trump is not certain to win the Republican nomination, and that his status, if anything, has been eroding within the party.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
Hopefully you're right. But expect the worst seems to be best.
You are assuming that Trump is worse than DeSantis?
Personally am NOT convinced. Because RDS is a far smarter, just as nasty, and potentially more dangerous than 45.
Note that the Governor had little difficulty winning HIS re-election. OR running his administration, without training wheels, child-proof latches or other obvious forms of adult supervision.
AND without needless alienating voters, a Trumpian specialty.
Whereas DeSantis also alienates hordes of voters BUT does it strategically, on purpose. Not just to hear himself fart.
Russell gets the podium, Alonso with a late penalty.
Fair enough if he breached the regs, but it's a bit irritating how much of the current season (and indeed further back) seems to be being decided by the stewards not the action on track.
F1 needs to freshen up. @Dura_Ace 's suggestion of weight penalties is definitely something they should look at, but of course won't.
I sometimes wonder if I should keep reading PB and then I see a pun like that in the header and the wondrous beauty of that postscript. I just can't kick the habit.
I don't understand how the SNP establishment couldn't rally behind a better candidate than this one. I'm far from certain the one they landed with would survive to a GE even if he wins the leadership
It's not obvious that Kate Forbes is that alternative.
She's either their Liz Truss or their Kemi Badenoch......
Forbes is their Kemi; absolutely not a Truss. Star quality. Look at the substance. Three key points
Like Kemi, Forbes has that rare quality that when she speaks you actually want to know what she has to say.
Forbes is straight and honest about her (IMHO wrongheaded) desire for independence : That to get there you need to demonstrate competence, integrity and a willingness to win the democratic argument over a long time. No quick fixes.
Solid integrity and willingness not to just be evasive about deep personal opinions and beliefs.
Conclusion: I am a politically centrist unionist with regard to E and W and Scotland. Forbes is the only candidate who is a threat to my personal position about that. But also the candidate who would be good for our politics and the moral mess it has got into, both in England and Scotland.
That's exactly where I am. Sturgeon never had any interest in economics. Her plan was to promote this fantasy of a progressive Scotland, so much more right on than those nasty English people. Little details about them being first to legalise homosexuality or gay marriage could not get in the way so she went ever more to the margins looking for pressure points leading ultimately to the GRR bill. It was a fools errand and has run its course.
Forbes, in contrast, wants to build a country that is economically viable, that can fund itself, that is not dependent on English subsidy and can stand on its own 2 feet. A country that could have a stable currency and good public services. As a Unionist I want exactly the same. I do not agree with her end point but I would be delighted to see Scotland moving along that road in a constructive way. A Scotland that no longer needs the Union is one which might well vote to leave it. Hers is the only vision of independence that has a cat in hell's chance of happening.
This route to independence is only possible if at least 2 of the following 3 things happens:
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term) 2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards 3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
1) won’t happen - there is more than enough offshore wind potential for both countries. The U.K. build out is largely constrained by building the turbines and installing them.
Piping drinking water any distance is very expensive. Desalination would be cheaper.
Comments
These sad days, just as GOP = Grifters On Parade, CUP = Cronies Utilizing Perks
1) Scotland has a second energy boom from off-shore wind, and England ends up reliant on that energy (possibly the same with drinking water in the long term)
2) Massive increase in immigration to make up for differential to England from 1997 onwards
3) Increase in fertility rates to make up for similar difference
Sadly, this stuff hasn't come up much in the debates.
Alternatively the heidie has to risk phoning up Plod and upsetting the inspector, if the inspector really is one.
The Toreis have been going on and on and on about the risks allegedly and specifically posed by self identifying people specifically when it comes to gender. Yet they permit this ...?
Piping drinking water any distance is very expensive. Desalination would be cheaper.
I agree about immigration but we first need to create the jobs, housing and opportunities that are going to entice people here.
The EC really needs to reconsider their stance on the latest Basel capital requirements, they're attempting to dodge them on a technicality but we're seeing what happens when insufficiently capitalised banks are put to the test. The BoE is right to push it through and I feel that they have been vindicated over the last couple of weeks.
She just doesn't know it yet.
And on (3), Sunak has come out with the expansion of ELC in England which the SNP must replicate at the very least to keep up.
More causalties are on the way even if Useless wins and slows it done for a short while. No-one here has ever questioned why Macbeth did not run.
You start at the market cap. You are paying a maximum of CHF1.
If you can identify more than the difference in unrecognised losses then it’s no deal
http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles/musical_box.html
Note that when Huey was removed from the scene in 1935 by an assassins bullet - or more likely, by bullet fired by one of his bodyguards that ricocheted - the once totally dominate Long organization fell apart in Louisiana. The fed already had Huey & his henchpeople on their radar screen, for variety of reasons of which Long's looming challenge to FDR, from populist left, for 1936 presidential nomination.
Within a few years, the Longite governor was in federal prison, Huey's handpicked president of LSU was in state prison, and an anti-Long candidate won the governorship.
The Long faction of the Democratic party survived, and even won the governorship a few times, most notably under Huey's brother, Earl Long aka "Uncle Earl" and Edwin Edwards aka "The Cajun Fox" but it was never the same as when the Kingfish ruled the roost . . . or rather the swamp.
But once inside the school, you are right, there is no effective way to check who they are.
And even if you do know, heads are for some reason reluctant to report them.
But what do you expect from an organisation led by a woman who says girls think sexting shouldn't be seen as a safeguarding matter?
Tenth marathon of 2023 completed. It took me past the delights of Old Warden airfield (better known by a different name), the Cardington Hangars, and Bedford.
Ran a few miles with a nice lady who is training for the London marathon in a few weeks time.
Don't know how successful that was, but was disturbed to learn that some hospitals thought it necessary.
Hope you are NOT one of those joggers, who uses their headlamps to shine bright lights into faces of oncoming pedestrian (in more ways than one) - before dawn?
Especially galling when done on a street light reasonably well by street lamps!
BTW, do you track you runs via GPS? Friend of mine did that with long-distance bicycle trip, and results were very interesting to view on resulting maps (done I think via google earth) including elevation gained/lost, and occasional pics & selfies shown at locations they were taken.
Though reckon you may NOT want to slow down for the latter.
Anyway, best of British - and Irish - luck re: your personal quest!
Though perhaps you MIGHT consider employing it for some social good, as in the following clip?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYyLSzPNgg0
This is about thirty years old, back when Bill Nye aka "The Science Guy" was just a local Seattle TV star; Dick's Drive-in, a local chain, is still a Seattle institution, the one shown, on Broadway on Capitol Hill, remains virtually unchanged. Except for (one hopes) the fry oil.
TBF SKS does look like a man with a thistle stuck up his arse.
You can see that by, among other things, the low attendance at CPAC, and the loss of supporters like the Club for Growth and Murdoch. And almost all the profesionals know, by now, that Trump is a loser, who has damaged the party.
(I have no idea what the odds on him winning the nomination should be now, because it is an n-person game, and we don't even know how large the "n" will be, much less who they will all be.
Nor do I know whether his opponents will be as inept as many were in 2016. I was genuinely astonished then by their failures to attack his many weaknesses. (And I did not expect our media to give them as much help as they did.)
Moreover, it is entirely possible that DeSantis running would hurt Trump, since he is seen by so many as appealing to the same voters.)
For example, Republican Party machines that dominated Philadelphia and also Pennsylvania for many decades in late 19th - early 20th centuries (Vare, Quay, Penrose) Also Chicago (Big Bill Thompson) and upstate New York (Tom Platt aka The Easy Boss).
Ditto much of downstate Illinois, up until about half century or so ago. For example, allegations of vote rigging by Daley machine in Cook County are part of popular culture re; 1960 presidential election. FAR less known, are equally plausible charges of vote rigging by Republican machine in many, albeit smaller, counties in the Land of Lincoln.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/19/stay-at-home-motherhood-being-undermined-says-senior-tory-mp
Truly extraordinary story.
And I suspect a few Leopards behind Russian lines would prove equally dramatic.
Forcing all parents into work, which barely covers cost of childcare, because economy leads to unhappy families.
On the other hand. He doesn't seem to rate men's ability to be the stay at home one.
On the other hand, his autocue reading was fairly impressive - no dodderiness and he would probably give a greater impression of youthful vigour during the campaign than Biden.
Could it be, that in 2024, it will be core, conservative, base Republican voters, possibly evangelicals, who will give the signal in early contests, between Trump and Ron DeSantis?
Having said that, I have a feeling he may still win. The one thing I do know about SNP members is the huge pride that they took in Nicola Sturgeon. They will be devastated at the trashing of her reputation. This sentiment is unlikely to recommend Kate Forbes to them even though - obviously - she is streets ahead of Humza as a credible leader. She may win, but it surely isn't a slam dunk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4j7ggZqbiU
Anyway here's the link:
https://www.notesonnationalism.com/p/previously-on-the-snp
* Both parents are desperate to get back into work and dump the tiny infant in a nursery as soon as possible because they can't afford to live otherwise, except...
* The nurseries are now so expensive that it costs most of what one parent is earning to pay the fees in the first place, and that's...
* Assuming that a nursery can even be found in the first place, because the Government pays out an absolute pittance to fund these so-called "free" childcare hours, which means that the nurseries have to cut their capacity because staff keep moving to better paid jobs at Aldi, or they simply fold
This is without getting into the thorny issue of whether or not putting preschool infants into nurseries is actually doing them any good.
Ultimately it's all down to the usual issue that blights most people's lives in this country: working people's incomes are taxed into the ground so that the asset wealth of the rich and the retired can be left well alone, and the state pension triple lock (along with the NHS, which spends nearly half of all its resources on the over 65s,) can continue to eat an ever greater share of national income, without anyone's precious houses getting taxed any more to cover the cost. Meanwhile, things like childcare that aren't priorities for old people either aren't done at all, or are done on the cheap, with predictable consequences.
Forget all the guff in the latest Budget. By the time this Government leaves office, there will be fewer nursery places left and they'll be even more expensive. Watch.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/19/this-will-be-the-end-of-nurseries-preschools-in-england-warn-of-closures-amid-free-childcare-expansion-plan
F1: bit of a wet pants, safety first hedge but the weekend was still nicely green. Been a rather nice start to the year, although historically that has led to tips quickly falling off a cliff.
It's entirely possible that the silent majority of SNP members aren't particular pro-Sturgeon at all, they're just pro-independence - and could just as easily conclude that a change of approach with Forbes is preferable to more of the same with Yousaf. We just don't know.
The fundamental problem, as I see it, is about a lack of a democratic mandate.
Let the electorate decide if your faith / how you relate your faith to politics - is problematic. Playing the victim, as Forbes does here, is pathetic.
Any change of FM/PM should trigger an election, imo.
https://www.shuttleworth.org/
Perez was impressive, though. The safety car robbed him of circa 20-25s advantage over Verstappen but the Dutchman couldn't close the gap. Street circuits are the Mexican's natural habitat, though. If he does something like that at places like Spa or Interlagos that's another kettle of fish.
Red Bull are in a league of one, currently. The advantage is almost comical.
With the basic problem being that plaguing party precinct caucuses in the US: very small effective electorates in relationship to the number of eligible voters. Which by definition increase the clout of participants but NOT their representative character. Or horse sense. Hard to have even the wisdom of crowd, when you ain't got anything close to a crowd.
This basic theoretical point, amplified by practical education in school of political hard knocks, was the impetus a dozen decades ago, for Robert La Follette of Wisconsin, to call for replacing the smoke-filled rooms of party caucuses and conventions, with the innovation of the PRIMARY, open to eligible voters, and far less susceptible to machine or other organized manipulation.
Fighting Bob not only called for it, he led and won the fight for the voter primary. Which did NOT result in paradise on earth. But which was a major improvement, for Wisconsin and beyond.
The entire policy is an exercise in extreme cynicism. It will fail, and Hunt knows it will fail. It's a PR exercise. It's being done to pretend that they care.
Personally am NOT convinced. Because RDS is a far smarter, just as nasty, and potentially more dangerous than 45.
Note that the Governor had little difficulty winning HIS re-election. OR running his administration, without training wheels, child-proof latches or other obvious forms of adult supervision.
AND without needless alienating voters, a Trumpian specialty.
Whereas DeSantis also alienates hordes of voters BUT does it strategically, on purpose. Not just to hear himself fart.
F1 needs to freshen up. @Dura_Ace 's suggestion of weight penalties is definitely something they should look at, but of course won't.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/18/very-sensitive-subject-plan-to-take-welsh-water-for-london-stirs-painful-memories