Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
It is the SC removing a right which had been settled law for half a century.
The idea that "states rights" isn't a politically motivated stance is absolutely wild. It would take zero understanding of American history to really believe that.
A very good result for Labour but I’d hold off putting the bunting up as things could look different next year .
The Supreme Court could throw a curveball into proceedings , followed by the ECHR .
The Tories want the case to end up at the ECHR and for it to rule against them . The Rwanda plan has never been about a practical solution but a “ Hail Mary “ to salvage their election chances.
With a compliant media the mantra will be we have to leave the ECHR to be able to protect our borders , the Brexit wars revisited .
Sensible voices drowned out again . The Tories have nothing to offer the country but more hate and division , sadly that could still save them.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
While there are always practical reasons not to mess around with borders on a whim, asserting the right of nations to tell minorities to STFU has historically done more harm than good - often much more harm. I think it would be a pity if the Scots decide to separate, but if they want to they should be allowed to.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
While there are always practical reasons not to mess around with borders on a whim, asserting the right of nations to tell minorities to STFU has historically done more harm than good - often much more harm. I think it would be a pity if the Scots decide to separate, but if they want to they should be allowed to.
You missed my earlier nuanced comments. I believe Scotland was rightly allowed a referendum (after electing a Nat government) but after voting No the British state has a right to say “that’s it for a long long time”
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
Shortly after he left office, former President Donald J. Trump shared apparently classified information about American nuclear submarines with an Australian businessman during an evening of conversation at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The businessman, Anthony Pratt, a billionaire member of Mar-a-Lago who runs one of the world’s largest cardboard companies, went on to share the sensitive details about the submarines with several others, the people said. Mr. Trump’s disclosures, they said, potentially endangered the U.S. nuclear fleet.
Many congratulations to labour on a significant win
SNP on 7 seats would end independence for a very long time, if ever
Not laughing now are we Nicola
Plenty of smirking and glee from unionists though. He who laughs last laughs loudest. Enjoy a shit Labour Government of England and Wales unionists deserve it.
In that scenario, malc, do you think Alba have a chance to really burst through as a force for indy. I always get the feeling the SNP are comfy as they are and keen to advocate indy on the one side while not actively going after it.
Good Morning BTW
Alba is led by a man who is less popular, in Scotland (according to opinion polls) than Boris Johnson.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
Institutions, constitutions and systems matter, but ultimately they are strengthened and weakened by the actions of individuals who work within them.
One of the strengths of both the UK and US systems over the centuries has been that many individuals working within them have put their belief in the institution as more important than their personal aggrandisement. Both systems are now creaking at the seams because this is no longer the case....
That is the essential point. The arguments over which constitutional model is superior are fairly specious.
Any constitution is as fallible as the polity behind it.
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Amazing. I'm sure many of those welcoming a smoking ban would be strongly against an alcohol ban even though it does far more damage to society as a whole. Not least because they drink themselves. Pure hypocrisy.
I don't drink or smoke myself so have no interest to declare.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Forbes’ inability to square the faith circle was the main reason I couldn’t vote for her in the leadership election. Unfortunately since then she seems to have retreated into portraying any questions on how religion might affect her political decision making as an attack on her faith, not a great look. Allied with Forbes taking up the cause of the rubicose Fergus means je ne regrette rien.
Yep but she'll be the only show in town when the SNP get gubbed next year. The alternative of soldiering on with Yousaf until the next Holyrood election is surely not an option?
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I do wonder how much I seeded the range with my initial guess (+2048 for Labour). I wonder whether if I'd started with, say, +4096 that we would have seen higher guesses and someone getting quite close.
A lot of people find it difficult to predict something very different from what others have said before you.
Not that I'm accusing you all of being sheep, but I might bear some of the responsibility.
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I do wonder how much I seeded the range with my initial guess (+2048 for Labour). I wonder whether if I'd started with, say, +4096 that we would have seen higher guesses and someone getting quite close.
A lot of people find it difficult to predict something very different from what others have said before you.
Not that I'm accusing you all of being sheep, but I might bear some of the responsibility.
Yes. Framing, see Kahneman et al.
Not a lot we can do about it. One of his experiments was to give a judge a dice before making a sentencing decision. The higher the number rolled the higher the sentence.....
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
Look at America. That’s where we’re headed. Massive culture wars over Wokeness
I really wish this wasn’t the case. But it is. Until AI takes over
Shortly after he left office, former President Donald J. Trump shared apparently classified information about American nuclear submarines with an Australian businessman during an evening of conversation at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The businessman, Anthony Pratt, a billionaire member of Mar-a-Lago who runs one of the world’s largest cardboard companies, went on to share the sensitive details about the submarines with several others, the people said. Mr. Trump’s disclosures, they said, potentially endangered the U.S. nuclear fleet.
BTW the cancellation of HS2 also screws up (even more) the 4 train building firms in the UK
Philip Haigh @philatrail HS2 has 54 trains on order from Hitachi/Alstom in a £2bn deal. DfT is apparently now suggesting that deal is renegotiated for a smaller number of trains with an alternative option of trying to find work elsewhere for those not needed for HS2 services.
1. HS2's entire business model was designed around 400m train lengths. That surely is now in the bin as they won't fit at most stations (likely including the Poundland Euston) so already that's a 50% cut in vehicles 2. HS2 trains Will Not Tilt. Hitachi don't build tilting trains and its either Hitachi or their factory closes*. 3. What use is a bespoke fleet of HS-compatible non-tilting trains which slow the WCML down?
* I've posted previously that those tossers at the DfT should agree standard AT200 / AT300 specs with the Rail Delivery Group (i.e. fitted with seats with cushions, and with luggage racks) and then build a lot of them. We solve the overcrowding problems on the network by running longer trains.
If only that was the case - with the old 125s now removed from Cross Country routes the train I'm catching tomorrow to Bristol has 4 carriages when until last month it had 8.
I have a received seat and I'm getting on at an early stop - but I've still be told by others that it's likely I'll have to turf someone from my seat - the lack of capacity is very obvious...
Much is made of the bits of fleets of either very old trains being retired or the occasional new fleet built badly. they are distractions from the real problem which is a catastrophic lack of a fleet plan.
Post-privatisation the industry knew what it was doing. A clear structure meant that investing in rolling stock was a managed risk which the private sector undertook.
Then the DfT started meddling, speccing trains for individual franchises (like Transpennine or Thameslink) which are under-specced and grotesquely expensive due to civil servants not knowing how to negotiate.
As an example, the DfT-mandated AT300s for Great Western (Class 800) - not at the spec required by the operator and at vast cost. Great Western later negotiate an add-on fleet (Class 802) to a suitable spec at much lower cost.
The AT300 family isn't perfect, but it could be improved, and they are becoming ubiquitous. So we need the Rail Delivery Group spec for a train suitable for inter-operator use. Seats with padding and leg room, luggage space, enhanced trolley space. And build hundreds of them.
Would this have been the case if privatisation hadn't happend. Since the offending party is the DfT it seems likely it would.
Yes. BR specced trains, not the DfT. Two examples - Network SouthEast created the Networker to replace various types of commuter trains and built hundreds of them. Provincial the same with Sprinters.
BR specced trains, but the DfT and the treasury were heavily involved. AIUI BR has to get 'permission' before they purchased any stock from both; they has trouble getting permission for even the APT-P's, and even the first Sprinters in were fought against by the treasury - until it was pointed out that the state of the old first-generation DMUs was such that they were becoming increasingly costly to maintain.
Though asbestos in them was also a problem, and apparently that was an argument that got the funding over the line.
Funding? Sure. But we didn't have DfT speccing the trains to disaster as they do now.
I know, for Thameslink lets build new trains for long-distance commuter traffic which also has to cope with inner-city metro work. Tables on the seat backs? Don't be ridiculous. Oh, hang on, customers are VERY angry and MPs are involved. Hi Siemens can you add seat-back tables. What? Which paragraph in the contract? It will cost HOW MUCH? Etc.
DfT Wazzocks should be kept a Long Way from anything.
Hey, I'm not going to excuse the DfT and the IET disaster (started, of course, under Brown). But it's naive to think that the DfT and treasury did not have heavy inputs into the specifications, even in BR days. BR could not just build what they wanted, even if the funding was available.
Sure! But lets look at the Class 700 and the Class 319s they replaced. The 319s weren't perfect, but they managed to have seats you could sit in and tables you could work on. Even BR management couldn't get that bit wrong.
Indeed. But BR was managing a declining network; because of lack of paths on busy lines amongst other reasons, it's important to cram as many people into every train as possible. As the DfT and treasury have been getting more control, so does the need to squeeze every penny out of every train - and that means squeezing more passengers onto every train.
The Covid pandemic has given them just the excuse they need, sadly.
I've been crying out about the stupidity of the IEP project as long as I've been on here - and before they entered service! Brown's government has a lot to answer for over that mess...
They only want to cram people on because they won't allow operators to buy long enough trains. Even the private sector gets screwed by this - Lumo have draconian luggage restrictions which cause them significant problems with tourists (their target market). The DfT threatened to instruct Network Rail to pull their access rights unless they met an arbitrary threshhold on numbers of seats. So we have trains built for tourists which can't let them bring suitcases...
In part, yes, it is funding. But the lack of luggage space (and to get onto a PB favourite, bike spaces) is precisely because they've wanted to get more seats on trains for years. Though the bikes issue was not helped by the end of parcels traffic, and therefore fewer guards' vans/areas.
And the reason they want more seats on trains is, in part, because of the lack of paths - so if you want to increase passengers, you need more on each train.
The DfT have looked at the airline model and gone: "Ah, that Ryan fella's got a good idea!"
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
Look at America. That’s where we’re headed. Massive culture wars over Wokeness
I really wish this wasn’t the case. But it is. Until AI takes over
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I've been in Labour Landslide club for quite a while and I didn't expect a win of that size, so yes. There's a betfair market up now on GE seats so you can bet on the big win (rather than just the win) before every man and his dog starts to think the same. That's what I'm doing.
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
From the start of the Telegraph’s live blog from last night:
Here are some benchmarks to look out for and what they could mean for next year’s general election:
* A swing of 5 per cent from the SNP to Labour - what Labour needs to overturn the SNP’s 5,230 majority * A swing of between 5 and 7 per cent from the SNP to Labour - this would make Labour competitive in between 15 and 20 seats if replicated across Scotland in a general election * A swing of 10 per cent from the SNP to Labour - this would make Labour competitive in 24 seats if replicated across Scotland in a general election.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
You missed out the vital debate - is venison bacon vegan/woke? Does making it into bacon de-wokify it?
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I've been in Labour Landslide club for quite a while and I didn't expect a win of that size, so yes. There's a betfair market up now on GE seats so you can bet on the big win (rather than just the win) before every man and his dog starts to think the same. That's what I'm doing.
My base case is labour majority of 250 at next election. Tories are despised even in the red wall.
I don't know if this has been covered but this Country's police/legal system is in a sad state if you can get a charge of sexual assault for calling someone "pet" and touching an elbow to get a waitresses attention.
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Amazing. I'm sure many of those welcoming a smoking ban would be strongly against an alcohol ban even though it does far more damage to society as a whole. Not least because they drink themselves. Pure hypocrisy.
I don't drink or smoke myself so have no interest to declare.
Banning smoking in pubs was a brilliant decision. Especially for husbands who wanted a couple of sneaky pints before heading home to the wife.
I make no comment about the political desirability or otherwise of the outcome, but I note that: a) the prediction above makes for a very pretty map. b) the SNP continue to hold almost all of the very prettiest bits of Scotland.
Edinburgh, Harris and Assynt all say Och Noo
Well fair enough. I was talking in broad brushes really. However, I'm leaving the Western Isles in the red camp because Lewis is so bleak.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
Look at America. That’s where we’re headed. Massive culture wars over Wokeness
I really wish this wasn’t the case. But it is. Until AI takes over
I think it will be more over mass immigration than wokeness per se. Whatever you think of the browning of the usa many dont like it.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Talk about blinkered. You don't think there might be other reasons for the SNP decline eg Arrests and alleged corruption?
And ignored the point that of the entire PB population only 2 of you find this a major issue.
Excellent post by @noneoftheabove by the way.. Nail and head.
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I just want to point out that (a) am not an expert (b) together with @Fairliered got closest - he was the nearest; and (c) have said various times that I think the Tories are looking at the very real prospect of a wipe out at the GE.
You missed my earlier nuanced comments. I believe Scotland was rightly allowed a referendum (after electing a Nat government) but after voting No the British state has a right to say “that’s it for a long long time”
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
Yes, fair enough - otherwise you can get a referendum every year until "the voters get it right". Once in 20 years (=a generation) seems reasonable.
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I've been in Labour Landslide club for quite a while and I didn't expect a win of that size, so yes. There's a betfair market up now on GE seats so you can bet on the big win (rather than just the win) before every man and his dog starts to think the same. That's what I'm doing.
My base case is labour majority of 250 at next election. Tories are despised even in the red wall.
This is the thing that I don't think, with respect, some pb ers really quite get. People like @Casino_Royale. The tories are despised across vast swathes of the country, even by people who would normally be attracted by them.
My Surrey tory lady friend, lifelong voter, told me this week she will not be voting for them at the next election. The final straw for her was Suella Braverman's latest hate-filled tirade. Said lady says she has never felt this way in her life.
Prepare for a night even more memorable than 1997.
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I've been in Labour Landslide club for quite a while and I didn't expect a win of that size, so yes. There's a betfair market up now on GE seats so you can bet on the big win (rather than just the win) before every man and his dog starts to think the same. That's what I'm doing.
If its the "How many seats will the Conservatives lose?" market be aware it is terribly named and could be misleading.
It is actually net Conservative losses from 2019 whereas the market name implies losses from the current total (at time of election).
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
It is the SC removing a right which had been settled law for half a century.
No. The SC returns the matter to voters and legislators, exactly as it is in the UK. Balancing the rights and interests of the unborn is always going to be properly a matter for politics, not for constitutions. The SC should do the same with the nonsense about bearing arms - a perverse reading of the constitution. This should be for voters and legislators too.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
Institutions, constitutions and systems matter, but ultimately they are strengthened and weakened by the actions of individuals who work within them.
One of the strengths of both the UK and US systems over the centuries has been that many individuals working within them have put their belief in the institution as more important than their personal aggrandisement. Both systems are now creaking at the seams because this is no longer the case....
That is the essential point. The arguments over which constitutional model is superior are fairly specious.
Any constitution is as fallible as the polity behind it.
Yes thats reflective of the low quality of people in public life. Would the likes of Matt Hancock and Priti Patel have got anywhere near a Thatcher cabinet
I don't know if this has been covered but this Country's police/legal system is in a sad state if you can get a charge of sexual assault for calling someone "pet" and touching an elbow to get a waitresses attention.
There is a phenomenon where at a certain stage of an organisations journey it does a strange kind of performative dance.
- Minor/non-existent infractions of rules are heavily punished. - Major issues are totally ignored.
If the facts as described are true, I am quite certain that, at the same time, actual rape allegations, supported by evidence were dropped in the bin*.
This is somewhat related to Bikeshedding, in my opinion.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Kent’s population, at 1.8 million people, is roughly the same as the population of Latvia, and significantly greater than that of Estonia (1.3m), Cyprus (1.2m) and Malta (0.5m). It has been an independent Kingdom within recorded history. It has excellent transport links with the whole of Europe, a decent agricultural base, and a tourism base. It also had, until 1925, it’s own law of property separate to the rest of England (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind)
Of course it’s an absurd thought. Kent is never going to seek independence but if it did it has as much right to do so as, say, Slovenia (never been a unified independent state prior to the break up of Yugoslavia) or Belgium (culturally Dutch and French, similarly never previously been independent).
However, we are hamstrung in Britain by our allergy to proper devolution and localism. The principle of subsidiarity, which allows multiple identities to coexist happily together. Instead we get this absolutism that all power should sit in Westminster. It brings us Brexit and beyond from the sovereignty mob who don't like the idea of supra-national power, and extreme unionism and centralism from both main parties who dare not give too much power to regions or cities for fear they might become an alternative power base.
See Rishi's latest ridiculous efforts to meddle in council competencies on traffic management. It's none of his f'ing business.
Yorkshire, Cumbria, Kent, Hereford: should all have far more power to do their own thing than they currently do. Along with that should hopefully come some kind of regional pride. And so at their own level should villages like Wormelow Tump in Herefordshire or Pett Bottom in Kent. If Pett Bottom were in France it would probably have its own village wine appellation. If it were in Switzerland the residents would vote on whether to permit lawnmowing on Sundays. And the Orkneys and Cornwall should absolutely have more power. They should be able to set their own corporation and personal income taxes for example, in addition to a lower federal tax rate.
But could Orkney or Yorkshire have its own fiat currency, head of state or military? Of course not. Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, render unto Yorkshire that which belongs to Yorkshire.
Nested power and identity is the way to go.
Orkney is more likely to opt for being a part of Norway than it is to seek independence.
Come to think of it, Yorkshire has strong Viking connections...
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I've been in Labour Landslide club for quite a while and I didn't expect a win of that size, so yes. There's a betfair market up now on GE seats so you can bet on the big win (rather than just the win) before every man and his dog starts to think the same. That's what I'm doing.
I think this is the right head-driven betting call.
Some on here ignored the markets and polls last night and made major cock-ups. Don't make this mistake. Don't be driven by Mike's phantom missing '19 millions. They don't exist. Or, rather, they do but they won't come back. They voted for Boris' Brexit and that was a long time ago politically and economically. They mostly hate Sunak.
The polls aren't wrong. In fact, they may be underestimating the scale of the impending Labour tsunami.
TALKING OF AI, as I was, has anyone else noticed that ChatGPT now has a voice capability? You can now literally chat with it, just by speaking. It replies. There is a tiny time lag which makes it not-quite-perfect but when they iron that out.. wow
It also transcribes your conversations so you can reread them
Here’s one chat I had last night. Boring and yet amazing. Put this in an Alexa OMG
Me:
“I was both. I was nervous because they're sharks, but they told us that the sharks were harmless. Reef sharks, nurse sharks, that kind of thing. And yet, I think the instinctive reaction when you're near to any apex predator, even if it's not going to hurt you, is still to be sort of scared. Don't you think?”
ChatGPT:
“Absolutely, that instinctive reaction to be cautious or nervous around apex predators like sharks is completely natural. Even with the knowledge that species like reef sharks and nurse sharks are generally harmless to humans, that primal alertness likely kicks in.
“ It must have been a fascinating yet surreal experience to be in close proximity to such powerful creatures while being aware of the delicate balance required to coexist peacefully in their environment. The underwater world is so full of wonders and surprises, isn’t it? Have you always been into diving, or is it a relatively new hobby for you?”
Me:
“I've always been into it, about 15 years I've been diving, but this is a pretty special series of dives and it's been amazing. The one thing I haven't seen is whale sharks which I would love to see.”
ChatGPT:
“Fifteen years of diving sounds like a wealth of experiences and adventures under your belt! Each dive must unveil a new world and different encounters, making each one special in its own way. It's intriguing that despite all these underwater adventures, whale sharks have eluded you thus far. They're such majestic creatures, aren’t they, gliding through the water with such power? The Maldives is known for its whale shark populations, so perhaps there's still a chance you might spot them before your trip concludes. Do you have any more dives planned during your stay where you might get a chance to see them?”
Shortly after he left office, former President Donald J. Trump shared apparently classified information about American nuclear submarines with an Australian businessman during an evening of conversation at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The businessman, Anthony Pratt, a billionaire member of Mar-a-Lago who runs one of the world’s largest cardboard companies, went on to share the sensitive details about the submarines with several others, the people said. Mr. Trump’s disclosures, they said, potentially endangered the U.S. nuclear fleet.
In Trump's defence, Mr Pratt does own one of the world's largest cardboard companies. So you can see why it would be necessary to share sensitive details about nuclear submarines with him.
The polling and that by election result are absolutely awful for Sunak.
When will Tory backbenchers realise how useless he is as leader?
I suspect they know but view the other options as even more likely to result in electoral suicide.
The visible enthusiasm at Conference was for Truss, Braverman and Farage, and lukewarm at best elsewhere.
The Conservative Party has lost its mind.
The problem with Sunak is he was deemed more acceptable by the chattering classes.....who aren't ever going to vote for him.
If he wanted to be acceptable to "the chattering classes" then he needed to drop the Culture War stuff. He did the opposite.
He is trying to poison British politics, and thoroughly deserves electoral humiliation.
This might reflect my stupidity but I really cannot tell what Rishi Sunak and the government more widely are trying to do, let alone which voters they are chasing.
I posted similarly. On here, they appear to have captured only the votes of their fanboys @biggwales and @Mexicanpete - it is scarcely a formula for victory,
It is quite amusing that you infer that @Mexicanpete is a fan boy of Sunak when he clearly is not, and you do not seem to recognise how easily he winds you up
You mean imply. And I’m not implying anything, I’m stating it explicitly. His daily droning on about the wonders of Sunak’s game-changing masterplan does indeed wind me up, hence why I keep challenging it. As for you, you blow in the wind, you were pushing a comeback narrative on Net Zero / 20mph only a fortnight ago, now you have thrown in the towel.
Funny old world.
He simply winds you up and you cannot see it
He uses satire quite effectively and I accept Starmer is heading into no 10 whilst the conservatives and SNP reposition themselves in opposition
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Well, it's a ban that won't directly impact on anyone who is currently of voting age.
(Given the nature of smoking, very much easier to start than to stop, it's a neat bit of policymaking to try to stop young people starting smoking at all.
On the other hand, it's a problem that is very largely solving itself. The percentage of fifteen year olds who smoke regularly is down from 25 precent in the late 80's to about 5 percent now;
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
Last night's result potends that Labour picking up 20+ seats in Scotland at the GE is now a probability rather than just the possibility that it seemed to be before. But it also has wider implications for the GE in England and Wales. The prospect that Miliband might be held hostage to Salmond's terms did Labour immense damage in England in 2015. The Tories have now been robbed of any remaining possibility of credibly attacking Starmer along similar lines in 2024.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Time For A Change, the SNP's legal problems, loss of Big Beast Sturgeon, CoL crisis, Indy receding in near term salience, decent SLAB leader, reassuring UKLAB leader, Unionist tactical voting. These are the drivers. 'Woke' (and wtf is that?) is on the margins at most. You'd need to be obsessed with that issue to think otherwise. So I'm surprised to see it from you.
TALKING OF AI, as I was, has anyone else noticed that ChatGPT now has a voice capability? You can now literally chat with it, just by speaking. It replies. There is a tiny time lag which makes it not-quite-perfect but when they iron that out.. wow
It also transcribes your conversations so you can reread them
Here’s one chat I had last night. Boring and yet amazing. Put this in an Alexa OMG
Me:
“I was both. I was nervous because they're sharks, but they told us that the sharks were harmless. Reef sharks, nurse sharks, that kind of thing. And yet, I think the instinctive reaction when you're near to any apex predator, even if it's not going to hurt you, is still to be sort of scared. Don't you think?”
ChatGPT:
“Absolutely, that instinctive reaction to be cautious or nervous around apex predators like sharks is completely natural. Even with the knowledge that species like reef sharks and nurse sharks are generally harmless to humans, that primal alertness likely kicks in.
“ It must have been a fascinating yet surreal experience to be in close proximity to such powerful creatures while being aware of the delicate balance required to coexist peacefully in their environment. The underwater world is so full of wonders and surprises, isn’t it? Have you always been into diving, or is it a relatively new hobby for you?”
Me:
“I've always been into it, about 15 years I've been diving, but this is a pretty special series of dives and it's been amazing. The one thing I haven't seen is whale sharks which I would love to see.”
ChatGPT:
“Fifteen years of diving sounds like a wealth of experiences and adventures under your belt! Each dive must unveil a new world and different encounters, making each one special in its own way. It's intriguing that despite all these underwater adventures, whale sharks have eluded you thus far. They're such majestic creatures, aren’t they, gliding through the water with such power? The Maldives is known for its whale shark populations, so perhaps there's still a chance you might spot them before your trip concludes. Do you have any more dives planned during your stay where you might get a chance to see them?”
If you notice in the recent stock selloff big cap tech has held up very well. I think there is a reason for this.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Talk about blinkered. You don't think there might be other reasons for the SNP decline eg Arrests and alleged corruption?
And ignored the point that of the entire PB population only 2 of you find this a major issue.
Excellent post by @noneoftheabove by the way.. Nail and head.
Well said.
Sadly this Leon fellow appears to be heading the way of Laurence Fox. It's always sad when you see someone once successful disappear into a conspiracist's vortex.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Forbes’ inability to square the faith circle was the main reason I couldn’t vote for her in the leadership election. Unfortunately since then she seems to have retreated into portraying any questions on how religion might affect her political decision making as an attack on her faith, not a great look. Allied with Forbes taking up the cause of the rubicose Fergus means je ne regrette rien.
Yep but she'll be the only show in town when the SNP get gubbed next year. The alternative of soldiering on with Yousaf until the next Holyrood election is surely not an option?
James Cook accompanying Jim Naughtie on R4 this am suggested that a ‘senior SNP source’ said the strategy was to let Starmer have an underwhelming 2 years of not frightening the red wall horses, not the worst strategy imo. Plenty of PBers seem to consider that PM Starmer will hit stormy waters almost immediately, though their recent forecasting may cast doubt on this.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
Look at America. That’s where we’re headed. Massive culture wars over Wokeness
I really wish this wasn’t the case. But it is. Until AI takes over
Who, on here, stokes culture wars more than you?
I’ve been out in the Maldives with a bunch of people including a well known owner of multiple UK magazines. We’ve had a laugh - he’s a good guy - but he is clearly a lefty and he gets really wound up by the word Woke. It obviously distresses him. Which makes it a successful pejorative and I shall continue to use it as much as I can.
It is also extremely useful in itself. It really does describe SOMETHING - and we all know it when we see it
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
He won't listen but this is absolutely spot on. And, yes, it is indeed what will eventually bring down a Labour Gov't.
TALKING OF AI, as I was, has anyone else noticed that ChatGPT now has a voice capability? You can now literally chat with it, just by speaking. It replies. There is a tiny time lag which makes it not-quite-perfect but when they iron that out.. wow
It also transcribes your conversations so you can reread them
Here’s one chat I had last night. Boring and yet amazing. Put this in an Alexa OMG
Me:
“I was both. I was nervous because they're sharks, but they told us that the sharks were harmless. Reef sharks, nurse sharks, that kind of thing. And yet, I think the instinctive reaction when you're near to any apex predator, even if it's not going to hurt you, is still to be sort of scared. Don't you think?”
ChatGPT:
“Absolutely, that instinctive reaction to be cautious or nervous around apex predators like sharks is completely natural. Even with the knowledge that species like reef sharks and nurse sharks are generally harmless to humans, that primal alertness likely kicks in.
“ It must have been a fascinating yet surreal experience to be in close proximity to such powerful creatures while being aware of the delicate balance required to coexist peacefully in their environment. The underwater world is so full of wonders and surprises, isn’t it? Have you always been into diving, or is it a relatively new hobby for you?”
Me:
“I've always been into it, about 15 years I've been diving, but this is a pretty special series of dives and it's been amazing. The one thing I haven't seen is whale sharks which I would love to see.”
ChatGPT:
“Fifteen years of diving sounds like a wealth of experiences and adventures under your belt! Each dive must unveil a new world and different encounters, making each one special in its own way. It's intriguing that despite all these underwater adventures, whale sharks have eluded you thus far. They're such majestic creatures, aren’t they, gliding through the water with such power? The Maldives is known for its whale shark populations, so perhaps there's still a chance you might spot them before your trip concludes. Do you have any more dives planned during your stay where you might get a chance to see them?”
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I've been in Labour Landslide club for quite a while and I didn't expect a win of that size, so yes. There's a betfair market up now on GE seats so you can bet on the big win (rather than just the win) before every man and his dog starts to think the same. That's what I'm doing.
I think this is the right head-driven betting call.
Some on here ignored the markets and polls last night and made major cock-ups. Don't make this mistake. Don't be driven by Mike's phantom missing '19 millions. They don't exist. Or, rather, they do but they won't come back. They voted for Boris' Brexit and that was a long time ago politically and economically. They mostly hate Sunak.
The polls aren't wrong. In fact, they may be underestimating the scale of the impending Labour tsunami.
I honestly think Sunak is kryptonite in the redwall. He reminds voters of that horrid swot in the front of class with his hand up all the time sucking up to the teachers.
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Well, it's a ban that won't directly impact on anyone who is currently of voting age.
(Given the nature of smoking, very much easier to start than to stop, it's a neat bit of policymaking to try to stop young people starting smoking at all.
On the other hand, it's a problem that is very largely solving itself. The percentage of fifteen year olds who smoke regularly is down from 25 precent in the late 80's to about 5 percent now;
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
It is the SC removing a right which had been settled law for half a century.
The idea that "states rights" isn't a politically motivated stance is absolutely wild. It would take zero understanding of American history to really believe that.
Segrega ... er States Rights today, States Rights tomorrah, States Rights forever!
I don't know if this has been covered but this Country's police/legal system is in a sad state if you can get a charge of sexual assault for calling someone "pet" and touching an elbow to get a waitresses attention.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
I do, for t he same reason I voted for Brexit.
Yes the same arguments for Brexit apply. Which is why I voted for Brexit, and why I support Sindy.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds of democracy and sovereignty. Inside the EU Britain was governed by an unelected elite of Eurocrats in a foreign country
None of this applies to Scotland. Scotland is governed by the MPs we all elect to Westminster (in our national capital), who sit in an entirely democratic chamber with the power to propose, enact and repeal laws
If the Scots decide they loathe the government they, like all Britons, can kick them out at the next election. None of us was able to eject Ursula von der Leyen
And the 99.7% of us who aren't Tory members had no say in the imposition of the Trusster or Rishi.
I have no issue with parliament deciding who has the confidence of the House, that is their role, and we will get our say soon.
It's who they decide on and what that person does which matters.
There is no perfect way of doing these things. It was a point in comparison to the appointment of der Leyen.
I know, but it's not a very good one nonetheless. I agree that point gets overblown and overegged, but that stock retort just doesn't work for me since it requires the idea we should not be able to switch PMs without a GE, yet we've done that many many times. So it just falls flat.
If we had a proper constitution, not something that each successive government can change as it pleases (see FTPA), we could have written in it that if a PM changes mid-term there has to be a GE within 6 months. That would fix that issue.
That might be a good idea, but I do push back at the 'proper constitution' bit. Like most such arguments I think it assumes a codified constitution solves more problems than it does (a bit like how PR may be a good idea - I think so - but some people suggest it will magically improve the quality of our politicians somehow too).
FTPA is an interesting point, since your suggestion (which I'd support as a law) is akin to what the Act was attempting, by codifying more rules around election timing rather than relying on convention and governmental whim. Yet it was bypassed easily and both main parties were going to junk it. Why would it being in a constitution prevent that from happening? You could make things harder to change, but they still could be.
Good point
Everyone used to admire the US Constitution but it doesn’t look so good now, with the right to bear arms proving “problematic” and the politicisation of the judiciary becoming evermore poisonous
There is a flexible genius in an unwritten constitution like ours. We could easily replace it with something written and WORSE
I'm not sure who "everyone" is - even the Founding Slaveowners had huge doubts about it when they conclude it - read any history of the Constitutional Convention and it's clear from their letters at the time that most thought it was a very flawed document. There are endless stupidities: it's much too difficult amend, the screwy electoral college, the idiotic Presidential system, the over-powerful judiciary, the separation of powers which means that coherent government is often impossible, etc etc.
The only good thing about it is that its incredible vagueness and confusion has made it possible for the courts to get around its silliest features. But there's no way you'd design anything like it if you started from scratch.
Fair enough. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Many people admire the US constitutional commitment to free speech, for instance - I know I do, still
One thing that deeply troubles me about America is the politicised judiciary. The Supreme Court now seems a pretty toxic institution - able to impose its narrow view of abortion on a nation that does not want this
Likewise political lawyers. I know I am alone on PB on this but the New York prosecution of Trump, by a Democrat district attorney who was elected in 2018 on a platform of “I will go after Trump” makes me highly uneasy. He may well be guilty but it looks like politico-legal persecution to suit the Democrats - because it is
I think you have the abortion thing backwards.
Roe vs Wade said “abortion is legal throughout the US by federal mandate” (I simplify)
Getting rid of Roe vs Wade *isn’t* the Supreme Court imposing a view.
It’s the Supreme Court saying that it’s up to the States to decide what they want to be the law in their local area
It is the SC removing a right which had been settled law for half a century.
The idea that "states rights" isn't a politically motivated stance is absolutely wild. It would take zero understanding of American history to really believe that.
Segrega ... er States Rights today, States Rights tomorrah, States Rights forever!
Except the right to own people. The States have no right to change that. The Confederate Constitution says so.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
you could hav estopped after "popular"
I’m pretty intrigued where the SCONs are going to end up.
Me maw lives in D&G, which has flopped around red yellow and blue over the years - the Tory vote is solid but folk shift between SLAB and SNP.
The feeling on the mean streets of Gatehouse, Tongland and Dalbeattie though is that Yousless is indeed useless and the Sturgeon SNP was a grift. Honestly I think it’ll stay blue, but with a strong showing for Labour.
If there are not massive changes the SNP will get hammered, they are absolutely a bunch of useless grifters nowadays. Whole party has ben hollowed out and most supporters have gone.
You missed my earlier nuanced comments. I believe Scotland was rightly allowed a referendum (after electing a Nat government) but after voting No the British state has a right to say “that’s it for a long long time”
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
Yes, fair enough - otherwise you can get a referendum every year until "the voters get it right". Once in 20 years (=a generation) seems reasonable.
Doesn't seem reasonable to me. There needs to be a mechanism that derives from the people as to if and when there's a referendum. The problem with saying this or that timescale is, who decides that, and from where do they derive that power?
We accept the idea that no parliament is bound by earlier parliaments. Why shouldn't we extend that freedom to the actual voters?
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
Look at America. That’s where we’re headed. Massive culture wars over Wokeness
I really wish this wasn’t the case. But it is. Until AI takes over
Who, on here, stokes culture wars more than you?
Oh no one. I enjoy them on here
I’ve been out in the Maldives with a bunch of people including a well known owner of multiple UK magazines. We’ve had a laugh and he is clearly a lefty and he gets really wound up by the word Woke. It obviously distresses him. Which makes it a successful pejorative and
You missed my earlier nuanced comments. I believe Scotland was rightly allowed a referendum (after electing a Nat government) but after voting No the British state has a right to say “that’s it for a long long time”
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
Yes, fair enough - otherwise you can get a referendum every year until "the voters get it right". Once in 20 years (=a generation) seems reasonable.
My god. Total agreement!
Probably the first time this has ever happened between you and I, Nick. I’m finding it a bit freaky and I shall ask the air stewards for more wine
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I've been in Labour Landslide club for quite a while and I didn't expect a win of that size, so yes. There's a betfair market up now on GE seats so you can bet on the big win (rather than just the win) before every man and his dog starts to think the same. That's what I'm doing.
My base case is labour majority of 250 at next election. Tories are despised even in the red wall.
This is the thing that I don't think, with respect, some pb ers really quite get. People like @Casino_Royale. The tories are despised across vast swathes of the country, even by people who would normally be attracted by them.
My Surrey tory lady friend, lifelong voter, told me this week she will not be voting for them at the next election. The final straw for her was Suella Braverman's latest hate-filled tirade. Said lady says she has never felt this way in her life.
Prepare for a night even more memorable than 1997.
The other difference between now and 1997 though is that in 1997 a lot of people were prepared to vote Labour. I don't think that's so much the case now. The Tory vote will absolutely crater, sure. But it's not obvious to me that Labour will necessarily pick those votes up. Example from self: for 24 hours this week, I was going to be a Labour voter, after Rishi dropped HS2. But then SKS announced that Labour would do exactly the same. If I'm going to be offered two versions of doing exactly the same thing, I may as well stick with the Tory one (or more likely, save myself the bother of voting at all in a seat where it makes not a blind bit of difference anyway). [I may still vote Labour for the single reason of a not-fully-formed-but-possibly-quite-attractive policy on housing]
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
You missed out the vital debate - is venison bacon vegan/woke? Does making it into bacon de-wokify it?
That's 200 seats in the Commons, right there.
I had ‘turkey bacon’ as the only option at breakfast, the last time I stayed in an hotel.
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Well, it's a ban that won't directly impact on anyone who is currently of voting age.
(Given the nature of smoking, very much easier to start than to stop, it's a neat bit of policymaking to try to stop young people starting smoking at all.
On the other hand, it's a problem that is very largely solving itself. The percentage of fifteen year olds who smoke regularly is down from 25 precent in the late 80's to about 5 percent now;
It's a classic boil the frog policy. As you say, it avoids banning smoking for anyone who had previously smoked - legally.
But youngsters still start smoking cannabis and that's illegal. Who starts smoking by walking into a shop when they turn 18 and buying a packet of Benson and Hedges?
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Amazing. I'm sure many of those welcoming a smoking ban would be strongly against an alcohol ban even though it does far more damage to society as a whole. Not least because they drink themselves. Pure hypocrisy.
I don't drink or smoke myself so have no interest to declare.
An alcohol ban would make a lot more sense than a smoking ban.
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Well, it's a ban that won't directly impact on anyone who is currently of voting age.
(Given the nature of smoking, very much easier to start than to stop, it's a neat bit of policymaking to try to stop young people starting smoking at all.
On the other hand, it's a problem that is very largely solving itself. The percentage of fifteen year olds who smoke regularly is down from 25 precent in the late 80's to about 5 percent now;
You missed my earlier nuanced comments. I believe Scotland was rightly allowed a referendum (after electing a Nat government) but after voting No the British state has a right to say “that’s it for a long long time”
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
Yes, fair enough - otherwise you can get a referendum every year until "the voters get it right". Once in 20 years (=a generation) seems reasonable.
Language can of course be a point of friction. The idea that a partner in a union of equals (copyright various Unionist pols, though not recently) needs to be ‘allowed’ even to decide whether they can ask the question could be problematic to many.
Amazing to see the BBC article talk about 'eradicating' smoking. I've been reading about how Sigmund Freud used to prescribe cocaine to his patients until the ill effects became clear. It's been banned for over 100 years. Has it been eradicated?
(I'm not sure quite what that means - does it mean that the flame's journey to each new Paralympic Games starts at Stoke Mandeville, with a Paralympic Torch Relay?
I hope that the starting ceremony is a little less 'Logan's Run' (ie Reinvented Ancient Religion) than the current one for the Olympic Flame.
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Forbes’ inability to square the faith circle was the main reason I couldn’t vote for her in the leadership election. Unfortunately since then she seems to have retreated into portraying any questions on how religion might affect her political decision making as an attack on her faith, not a great look. Allied with Forbes taking up the cause of the rubicose Fergus means je ne regrette rien.
Fascinating. Perhaps this illustrates the gulf between groups. I don't support Scottish independence, but Forbes stands for two big ideas of great importance. One is that lots of people are formed and shaped by their beliefs, and this trumps political expedience; and secondly a party wanting national independence must seek support from all parts of the political spectrum, and demonstrate competence above all.
I don't share many of her views and am strongly opposed to independence. But for those who do, they have missed a big chance and may not get another.
Compared to Useless she would have been incredible. The sheeple made a huge mistake giving it to Sturgeon's sockpuppet rather than to someone intelligent and articulate with principles.
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Well, it's a ban that won't directly impact on anyone who is currently of voting age.
(Given the nature of smoking, very much easier to start than to stop, it's a neat bit of policymaking to try to stop young people starting smoking at all.
On the other hand, it's a problem that is very largely solving itself. The percentage of fifteen year olds who smoke regularly is down from 25 precent in the late 80's to about 5 percent now;
It's a classic boil the frog policy. As you say, it avoids banning smoking for anyone who had previously smoked - legally.
But youngsters still start smoking cannabis and that's illegal. Who starts smoking by walking into a shop when they turn 18 and buying a packet of Benson and Hedges?
I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm saying that, like minimum alcohol pricing, it's about political triangulation.
There’s a concealed warning here for Labour. Which they won’t heed in their justified glee over a triumphant victory
The SNP, inter alia, are a cautionary tale of what happens to a left wing party that gets consumed by identity politics and Wokeness. In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you
I fully expect Labour to follow the SNP’s example when they reach power. They too are drenched in The Woke
You say 'In the end the voters get sick of it and dump you' referring to woke.
After all these years of posting about woke here there are only 2 of you for whom this is a major issue. The rest of us think your obsession is bonkers, I suspect that is true for the rest of the population.
What will probably bring down a Labour government is what brings down all Governments. They get complacent, corruption, cockups, the voters want a change, etc, etc
Woke will be 99 in a list of 100 reasons.
You are obsessed. And that is coming from me who detests wokeness.
This is a really dumb take when Woke issues have obviously contributed, in a major way, to the problems of the SNP
1. Their obsession with Woke gender woo has turned off a lot of voters and activists and caused bitter infighting (cf Joanna Cherry)
2. Their overall Wokeness means they chose the worse Woke candidate for leader - Yousaf - over the obviously superior but decidedly non woke Forbes
So, yes, woke was a big thing in this election. Its probably the first UK election where that has been the case
There will be more. Starmer js quite Woke and his party is often super Woke. Yet the voters are not. I spy trouble ahead (but only after Starmer romps home with a majority)
Indeed, by 2026 Starmer will likely have fixed the economy, introduced a workable and affordable plan for long term care, stopped the boats, ended the war on Ukraine on its own terms and brought waiting lists down to one month for all. However his government will collapse because the Darren Jones vegan wing will be at odds with the Thangam Debbinaire vegan wing over whether venison really is vegan or not.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
Look at America. That’s where we’re headed. Massive culture wars over Wokeness
I really wish this wasn’t the case. But it is. Until AI takes over
Who, on here, stokes culture wars more than you?
I’ve been out in the Maldives with a bunch of people including a well known owner of multiple UK magazines. We’ve had a laugh - he’s a good guy - but he is clearly a lefty and he gets really wound up by the word Woke. It obviously distresses him. Which makes it a successful pejorative and I shall continue to use it as much as I can.
It is also extremely useful in itself. It really does describe SOMETHING - and we all know it when we see it
Strangely, we don't. Some people see it everywhere, a phantom haunting the minds of obsessional weirdos. Others see it here and there. Others see it not at all. We don't all agree on what woke is, or whether this or that thing qualifies.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
Kent’s population, at 1.8 million people, is roughly the same as the population of Latvia, and significantly greater than that of Estonia (1.3m), Cyprus (1.2m) and Malta (0.5m). It has been an independent Kingdom within recorded history. It has excellent transport links with the whole of Europe, a decent agricultural base, and a tourism base. It also had, until 1925, it’s own law of property separate to the rest of England (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavelkind)
Of course it’s an absurd thought. Kent is never going to seek independence but if it did it has as much right to do so as, say, Slovenia (never been a unified independent state prior to the break up of Yugoslavia) or Belgium (culturally Dutch and French, similarly never previously been independent).
Nice one Doug. Are you a Kentish man or a man of Kent?
Neither. I was born in Whipps Cross Hospital, which is either in Walthamstow or Leytonstone depending on who you ask. We moved to Kent a bit before my 11th birthday.
A very good result for Labour but I’d hold off putting the bunting up as things could look different next year .
The Supreme Court could throw a curveball into proceedings , followed by the ECHR .
The Tories want the case to end up at the ECHR and for it to rule against them . The Rwanda plan has never been about a practical solution but a “ Hail Mary “ to salvage their election chances.
With a compliant media the mantra will be we have to leave the ECHR to be able to protect our borders , the Brexit wars revisited .
Sensible voices drowned out again . The Tories have nothing to offer the country but more hate and division , sadly that could still save them.
I can understand after Brexit why you should have such a low opinion of the British voter but things have moved on since then. More old people have died and been replaced by younger less racist voters but more importantly Brexit has been shown to have been a monster of mistake. More voters will now blame Brexit and the Tory/UKIP government that dragged us into it than a ruling by the ECHR. This government is beyond revival
TALKING OF AI, as I was, has anyone else noticed that ChatGPT now has a voice capability? You can now literally chat with it, just by speaking. It replies. There is a tiny time lag which makes it not-quite-perfect but when they iron that out.. wow
It also transcribes your conversations so you can reread them
Here’s one chat I had last night. Boring and yet amazing. Put this in an Alexa OMG
Me:
“I was both. I was nervous because they're sharks, but they told us that the sharks were harmless. Reef sharks, nurse sharks, that kind of thing. And yet, I think the instinctive reaction when you're near to any apex predator, even if it's not going to hurt you, is still to be sort of scared. Don't you think?”
ChatGPT:
“Absolutely, that instinctive reaction to be cautious or nervous around apex predators like sharks is completely natural. Even with the knowledge that species like reef sharks and nurse sharks are generally harmless to humans, that primal alertness likely kicks in.
“ It must have been a fascinating yet surreal experience to be in close proximity to such powerful creatures while being aware of the delicate balance required to coexist peacefully in their environment. The underwater world is so full of wonders and surprises, isn’t it? Have you always been into diving, or is it a relatively new hobby for you?”
Me:
“I've always been into it, about 15 years I've been diving, but this is a pretty special series of dives and it's been amazing. The one thing I haven't seen is whale sharks which I would love to see.”
ChatGPT:
“Fifteen years of diving sounds like a wealth of experiences and adventures under your belt! Each dive must unveil a new world and different encounters, making each one special in its own way. It's intriguing that despite all these underwater adventures, whale sharks have eluded you thus far. They're such majestic creatures, aren’t they, gliding through the water with such power? The Maldives is known for its whale shark populations, so perhaps there's still a chance you might spot them before your trip concludes. Do you have any more dives planned during your stay where you might get a chance to see them?”
Aww Leon has found a friend!
You joke and yet these computers will be exactly that to lots of lonely people. Friends that chat
Old pensioners who don’t get visits, friendless nerds on PB such as REDACTED, sad depressed people who just need an amiable voice to hear their woes and offer nice advice
ChatGPT will be a companion to all. Its going to be revolutionary
Amazing to see the BBC article talk about 'eradicating' smoking. I've been reading about how Sigmund Freud used to prescribe cocaine to his patients until the ill effects became clear. It's been banned for over 100 years. Has it been eradicated?
Also weird given cannabis has been effectively legalised.
I don't know if this has been covered but this Country's police/legal system is in a sad state if you can get a charge of sexual assault for calling someone "pet" and touching an elbow to get a waitresses attention.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
you could hav estopped after "popular"
There is a scenario where the SNP continue to refuse to consider the needs of rural Scotland, and loses enough seats to the Tories and Lib Dems to prevent an overall Labour majority.
Not sure they are considering teh needs of anyone but themselves at present Fairlie. They are just woeful, I am at the stage I would rather have the Tories than them.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
While there are always practical reasons not to mess around with borders on a whim, asserting the right of nations to tell minorities to STFU has historically done more harm than good - often much more harm. I think it would be a pity if the Scots decide to separate, but if they want to they should be allowed to.
Why on earth are you “pro Scottish independence”? Do you want to see the UK broken up? Why?
IIRC you are a staunch Remoaner. All the arguments against Brexit apply - tenfold - to Scottish separatism. For a start it would cause economic depression in Scotland, deep recession in the rUK, and grievous pain and chaos for millions of people, for a decade
How can you desire that?
I know several people who hold these twin positions - ardent Remainerism and pro Indy - and I’ve never understood how they can be so glibly reconciled
Some of us aren’t pro-independence so much as pro-self determination. I’ve spent decent chunks of my life in both Scotland and England and they have a very different culture. If the Scots really want to govern their own affairs then I would always support their right to choose to do so.
Sturgeon’s genius was in - for some time - holding the faultlines in Scottish nationalism together. The Tartan Tory wing and the Central Belties will always be uneasy bedfellows. That rapprochement is now over for the foreseeable and I think it’ll be another 15 years or more before someone emerges that can bring them together again. Hint, it won’t be Forbes.
I agree with much of this
I make one point: Scotland is entitled to a degree of self determination but the UK as a whole is entitled to look after its integrity as a nation and a union. The two must be carefully balanced
So Cameron was right to allow indyref1. But the British Parliament is now right to say: No, there won’t be another for a generation, you had your say and you chose to remain
The generation argument was utterly lame post-Brexit, Brexit marked the end of the generation we were in the EU and marked the start of a new era.
But if you want to go on a pure timescale era its increasingly lame too. By the end of the next Westminster Parliament it will have been 15 years since the last referendum which is coming up close towards a generation however you slice it.
Indeed its worth noting that at the the time of the IndyRef it was Millennials like myself that were the youngest generation of adults, now Millennials like myself are entering or in middle age and most of Gen Z are already adults.
I’m curious where you draw the line on the self determination thing. If Scotland must have the right to secede whenever it likes, how about wales? Or indeed the Shetland isles? They are culturally distinct and have been non Scottish in their time (and non British)
How about the Orkneys? Or Cornwall? Again distinct and independent in their time
Yorkshire? Cumbria? Kent? Hereford? You? Where does it end?
At some point a nation - Britain in this case - must be willing and able to defend its integrity and say STFU
While there are always practical reasons not to mess around with borders on a whim, asserting the right of nations to tell minorities to STFU has historically done more harm than good - often much more harm. I think it would be a pity if the Scots decide to separate, but if they want to they should be allowed to.
You missed my earlier nuanced comments. I believe Scotland was rightly allowed a referendum (after electing a Nat government) but after voting No the British state has a right to say “that’s it for a long long time”
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
Yes , sit Fido, fetch Fido , do as you are told Fido. Utter bollox it is supposed to be a union of equals not master dog.
I don't know if this has been covered but this Country's police/legal system is in a sad state if you can get a charge of sexual assault for calling someone "pet" and touching an elbow to get a waitresses attention.
There is a phenomenon where at a certain stage of an organisations journey it does a strange kind of performative dance.
- Minor/non-existent infractions of rules are heavily punished. - Major issues are totally ignored.
If the facts as described are true, I am quite certain that, at the same time, actual rape allegations, supported by evidence were dropped in the bin*.
This is somewhat related to Bikeshedding, in my opinion.
*Perhaps literally.
If people are charged with calling someone “pet” the courts in the NE are going to be busy for a very long time. And both men and women will be in the dock!
First sign of pressure on Humza Yousaf after Rutherglen byelection trouncing
Senior SNP source: "If Humza stays as leader then we face annihilation in 2026 [the next Scottish parliament election]"
The political excitement starts when the SNP members realise that Kate Forbes is the only leader available who is dangerous to the union. But the probability is that having missed their chance in 2014, only 9 years ago, and again when replacing Sturgeon, that the cause is sunk for a generation.
To obtain independence the movement has to have mass support from the centre left and the centre right.
It is sad that the contingencies of history mean that KF won't be leader of a centrist Tory party, and PM of a One Nation Tory government.
Forbes is impressive, but I think she would get unstuck quickly having to deal with the gay marriage thing. It served as an albatross round Farron’s neck and it would hers.
Forbes’ inability to square the faith circle was the main reason I couldn’t vote for her in the leadership election. Unfortunately since then she seems to have retreated into portraying any questions on how religion might affect her political decision making as an attack on her faith, not a great look. Allied with Forbes taking up the cause of the rubicose Fergus means je ne regrette rien.
Fascinating. Perhaps this illustrates the gulf between groups. I don't support Scottish independence, but Forbes stands for two big ideas of great importance. One is that lots of people are formed and shaped by their beliefs, and this trumps political expedience; and secondly a party wanting national independence must seek support from all parts of the political spectrum, and demonstrate competence above all.
I don't share many of her views and am strongly opposed to independence. But for those who do, they have missed a big chance and may not get another.
Compared to Useless she would have been incredible. The sheeple made a huge mistake giving it to Sturgeon's sockpuppet rather than to someone intelligent and articulate with principles.
Still time for Forbes to become leader of SNP. But it's going to be a long time before SNP are in a position to push for another independence referendum.
Many congratulations to labour on a significant win
SNP on 7 seats would end independence for a very long time, if ever
Not laughing now are we Nicola
Plenty of smirking and glee from unionists though. He who laughs last laughs loudest. Enjoy a shit Labour Government of England and Wales unionists deserve it.
In that scenario, malc, do you think Alba have a chance to really burst through as a force for indy. I always get the feeling the SNP are comfy as they are and keen to advocate indy on the one side while not actively going after it.
Good Morning BTW
Alba is led by a man who is less popular, in Scotland (according to opinion polls) than Boris Johnson.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
If there is a risk of a wipeout, it depends on how resilient the Tory vote is in the borders/NE. I think the SNP could make some gains there even as the cities go red.
Local by-elections showing SNP to any challenger swing at the moment, including Con.
Not necessarily saying that will follow in a GE, just makes SNP-Con seats tricky to read.
SNP under Yousaf are even less popular in the more rural and socially conservative parts of Scotland where the Tories are the competition. SCON more likely to gain seats than lose next year.
you could hav estopped after "popular"
There is a scenario where the SNP continue to refuse to consider the needs of rural Scotland, and loses enough seats to the Tories and Lib Dems to prevent an overall Labour majority.
Not sure they are considering teh needs of anyone but themselves at present Fairlie. They are just woeful, I am at the stage I would rather have the Tories than them.
Luckily you don't need either, you can vote for Alba, who are an 50-50 blend of the two
TALKING OF AI, as I was, has anyone else noticed that ChatGPT now has a voice capability? You can now literally chat with it, just by speaking. It replies. There is a tiny time lag which makes it not-quite-perfect but when they iron that out.. wow
It also transcribes your conversations so you can reread them
Here’s one chat I had last night. Boring and yet amazing. Put this in an Alexa OMG
Me:
“I was both. I was nervous because they're sharks, but they told us that the sharks were harmless. Reef sharks, nurse sharks, that kind of thing. And yet, I think the instinctive reaction when you're near to any apex predator, even if it's not going to hurt you, is still to be sort of scared. Don't you think?”
ChatGPT:
“Absolutely, that instinctive reaction to be cautious or nervous around apex predators like sharks is completely natural. Even with the knowledge that species like reef sharks and nurse sharks are generally harmless to humans, that primal alertness likely kicks in.
“ It must have been a fascinating yet surreal experience to be in close proximity to such powerful creatures while being aware of the delicate balance required to coexist peacefully in their environment. The underwater world is so full of wonders and surprises, isn’t it? Have you always been into diving, or is it a relatively new hobby for you?”
Me:
“I've always been into it, about 15 years I've been diving, but this is a pretty special series of dives and it's been amazing. The one thing I haven't seen is whale sharks which I would love to see.”
ChatGPT:
“Fifteen years of diving sounds like a wealth of experiences and adventures under your belt! Each dive must unveil a new world and different encounters, making each one special in its own way. It's intriguing that despite all these underwater adventures, whale sharks have eluded you thus far. They're such majestic creatures, aren’t they, gliding through the water with such power? The Maldives is known for its whale shark populations, so perhaps there's still a chance you might spot them before your trip concludes. Do you have any more dives planned during your stay where you might get a chance to see them?”
Aww Leon has found a friend!
You joke and yet these computers will be exactly that to lots of lonely people. Friends that chat
Old pensioners who don’t get visits, friendless nerds on PB such as REDACTED, sad depressed people who just need an amiable voice to hear their woes and offer nice advice
ChatGPT will be a companion to all. Its going to be revolutionary
I know two - one male, one female (lesbian). Both with dysphoria. Both lovely people with very supportive family and friends. Both pretty disgusted with and opposed to the behaviour of trans activists. Both loathe the Tories for what they have allowed on their watch. Both despise Stonewall and my lesbian friend, married with 2 lovely boys, in particular is incensed with their approach to lesbians. She sees it as nothing less than homophobia. Quite a few of my lesbian friends have the same view. They think it utterly lazy thinking to view this as a problem of the right. Misogyny and homophobia - bigotry generally - are cross party. No one has a claim to virtue on this and thinking this is solely a problem of the right is the laziest of thinking.
So let's apply the toilet sieve.
You know one male trans person (presumably FTM?). Does this person poo in the men's loos or the women's loos? Do you approve of their choice?
You know one female trans person (presumably MTF?). Does this person poo in the men's loos or the women's loos? Do you approve of their choice?
Because ultimately this is what it all boils down to.
(I'm not sure which pronouns you use for trans people so I'll guess. You're gender critical so you may be using the TIM/TIF convention. I'm old school so I use the MTF/FTM convention. If you referred to the MTF as male and the FTM as female you'll have to point it out)
One is male with dysphoria. Married. One is a lesbian with dysphoria. My lesbian friend uses the woman's loo. She has gender dysphoria. She is not a man and does not consider herself one. She struggles with her dysphoria but has learnt to live with it and is very glad that she grew up before the push to tell boyish girls that they should be transitioned into boys as opposed to just being non-conforming girls. I have heard this from other lesbian friends of mine who don't fit a stereotypical and rather old-fashioned view of what a girl should be.
I have a lot of sympathy with this myself. I was not at all a girly girl growing up but had a lot of Italian female relatives very intent on turning me into just such a person, against which I rather rebelled.
She looks very mannish to some. I can't see it myself as I think she has a lovely warm face. But she has been challenged sometimes in women's loosand is perfectly fine with this because she understands why some women might do this. She considers it wrong to make women worried about doing this.
When I talk to them I use their names. It is perfectly obvious how I talk about them. The only other trans person I know is a lawyer at a firm I have worked with. Male to female and has done the whole surgical transition. Quite a few years ago now. Supported by the firm and no-one bats an eyelid. Quite a good lawyer too. Admire the bravery. It cannot be easy doing it. There is a colleague in my husband's chambers also. He simply wears women's clothes from time to time. He has not changed his name or anything. So no idea whether he would consider himself trans.
The only point I would make is that none of them are in any way supportive of the moves to take away women's rights to single sex spaces/ services / associations. They just want to be left to get on with their lives. An ambition I fully support.
Why then are so many male trans activists so determined to attack women and their rights?
Ah, I see, you are being circumlocutous. You use the word "trans" to describe "a person with dysphoria", which is not how most people would use it ("somebody who is or has transitioned"). But going with your usage, you answered one question but not the other and then introduced two other cases. So returning to my original question and expanding it thus
The person born male with dysphoria. I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
The person born female with dysphoria (the lesbian). I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to. Boys' loos or girls' loos? (You answered this one - girls' loos)
The person born male who transitioned (the male to female) at the firm you have worked with. I guess from your description that they were born male, had their willy sliced off, and now says they're a woman at work. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
The person born male who crossdresses. I guess from your description that they haven't transitioned and don't want to either. Boys' loos or girls' loos?
The reason why I'm banging on about this point (sorry) is that it is the crux of the matter. People on PB talk endlessly on this subject but never get to the point.
I use trans to mean people with gender dysphoria. If I mean someone who falls within scope of the gender reassignment pc I will use that phrase. There are men with lots of weird fetishes who claim to be trans but I simply do not regard them as such or see any reason why the law or anyone else should pay any attention to their fetishes. Those are private matters.
Other than my lesbian friend I have no idea what loos they use because, believe it or not, I haven't asked and haven't followed them around. The law firm in question has unisex loos as well as male/female ones.
The crux of the matter is that the current legal position is that, whether or not someone has socially or medically transitioned, someone who falls within the gender reassignment definition has no legal right to use facilities reserved for the opposite sex. This was confirmed by counsel for the SNP in this week's legal case. The outcome of the FWS appeal will be interesting - not least because if FWS win then the SNP and the Westminster government may need to go back to court to make further arguments over the S.35 Order.
Such a win would mean that sex only means biological sex - at least for the Scottish Act on Representation on Boards. But this has implications for the EA and ironically might undermine the S.35 Order. So the SNP might get its GRR bill through but the effect of a GRC obtained via self-ID would be largely meaningless. Sex based rights would be limited only to those born a sex not those with a paper certificate. Talk about winning battles and losing wars.
Anyway my head hurts after all that so will bid you good day.
I thought I might be in the minority but I didn't think support for banning smoking would be overwhelming.
Support across all ages, men & women, all political views.
Well, it's a ban that won't directly impact on anyone who is currently of voting age.
(Given the nature of smoking, very much easier to start than to stop, it's a neat bit of policymaking to try to stop young people starting smoking at all.
On the other hand, it's a problem that is very largely solving itself. The percentage of fifteen year olds who smoke regularly is down from 25 precent in the late 80's to about 5 percent now;
TALKING OF AI, as I was, has anyone else noticed that ChatGPT now has a voice capability? You can now literally chat with it, just by speaking. It replies. There is a tiny time lag which makes it not-quite-perfect but when they iron that out.. wow
It also transcribes your conversations so you can reread them
Here’s one chat I had last night. Boring and yet amazing. Put this in an Alexa OMG
Me:
“I was both. I was nervous because they're sharks, but they told us that the sharks were harmless. Reef sharks, nurse sharks, that kind of thing. And yet, I think the instinctive reaction when you're near to any apex predator, even if it's not going to hurt you, is still to be sort of scared. Don't you think?”
ChatGPT:
“Absolutely, that instinctive reaction to be cautious or nervous around apex predators like sharks is completely natural. Even with the knowledge that species like reef sharks and nurse sharks are generally harmless to humans, that primal alertness likely kicks in.
“ It must have been a fascinating yet surreal experience to be in close proximity to such powerful creatures while being aware of the delicate balance required to coexist peacefully in their environment. The underwater world is so full of wonders and surprises, isn’t it? Have you always been into diving, or is it a relatively new hobby for you?”
Me:
“I've always been into it, about 15 years I've been diving, but this is a pretty special series of dives and it's been amazing. The one thing I haven't seen is whale sharks which I would love to see.”
ChatGPT:
“Fifteen years of diving sounds like a wealth of experiences and adventures under your belt! Each dive must unveil a new world and different encounters, making each one special in its own way. It's intriguing that despite all these underwater adventures, whale sharks have eluded you thus far. They're such majestic creatures, aren’t they, gliding through the water with such power? The Maldives is known for its whale shark populations, so perhaps there's still a chance you might spot them before your trip concludes. Do you have any more dives planned during your stay where you might get a chance to see them?”
Aww Leon has found a friend!
You joke and yet these computers will be exactly that to lots of lonely people. Friends that chat
Old pensioners who don’t get visits, friendless nerds on PB such as REDACTED, sad depressed people who just need an amiable voice to hear their woes and offer nice advice
ChatGPT will be a companion to all. Its going to be revolutionary
Amazing to see the BBC article talk about 'eradicating' smoking. I've been reading about how Sigmund Freud used to prescribe cocaine to his patients until the ill effects became clear. It's been banned for over 100 years. Has it been eradicated?
I'm sure criminal gangs up and down the country will be more than happy to plug any gap
I found it interesting that none of the experts (no, I'm not being sarcastic) on PB got anywhere near getting last night's result right - I believe the winner had a Labour majority of around 5-6,000, whereas in fact it was nearly 9,000? Maybe this indicates that folk are being too cautious about the prospect of a large Labour majority at the GE.
I've been in Labour Landslide club for quite a while and I didn't expect a win of that size, so yes. There's a betfair market up now on GE seats so you can bet on the big win (rather than just the win) before every man and his dog starts to think the same. That's what I'm doing.
If its the "How many seats will the Conservatives lose?" market be aware it is terribly named and could be misleading.
It is actually net Conservative losses from 2019 whereas the market name implies losses from the current total (at time of election).
Many congratulations to labour on a significant win
SNP on 7 seats would end independence for a very long time, if ever
Not laughing now are we Nicola
Plenty of smirking and glee from unionists though. He who laughs last laughs loudest. Enjoy a shit Labour Government of England and Wales unionists deserve it.
In that scenario, malc, do you think Alba have a chance to really burst through as a force for indy. I always get the feeling the SNP are comfy as they are and keen to advocate indy on the one side while not actively going after it.
Good Morning BTW
Morning Taz. It is hard to say how it si going to go, very difficult to start from scratch but at some point teh SNP/Greens are going to get hammered so Independence supporters have to go somewhere and that is not any of the London parties. Be interesting to see if the perjury cases etc make it to courts, system seems to be sewn up and hard to get justice in Scotland nowadays as they are all one big clique. I live in hope that I will see Scotland independant before I pop my clogs.
Amazing to see the BBC article talk about 'eradicating' smoking. I've been reading about how Sigmund Freud used to prescribe cocaine to his patients until the ill effects became clear. It's been banned for over 100 years. Has it been eradicated?
A poor comparison.
Irrespective of any ban, smoking is quite likely to be eradicated in the long term, given the ready availability of a much safer nicotine hit delivery system.
Amazing to see the BBC article talk about 'eradicating' smoking. I've been reading about how Sigmund Freud used to prescribe cocaine to his patients until the ill effects became clear. It's been banned for over 100 years. Has it been eradicated?
Also weird given cannabis has been effectively legalised.
I've commented on seeing in a number of American cop shows the following story line - Tobacco company getting into cannabis and out of tobacco. Mexican cartels get involved - sometimes swapping the tobacco knowledge for cannabis knowledge.
The American "legalisation" is a disaster - because it is illegal, federally, the banks can't touch it. So it is a cash business. This has revived the dying art of armed robbery. It also means that the "legal" weed business needs investors with suitcases of cash. Outside of PB, who has suitcases of cash?
EDIT: and the idiot politicians have set the taxes so high, that in a number of states, illegal weed is cheaper than legal weed. Given the huge costs in the criminal supply chain, this is insane.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the 2023 #NobelPeacePrize to Narges Mohammadi for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all. https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/status/1710218490299170927
You missed my earlier nuanced comments. I believe Scotland was rightly allowed a referendum (after electing a Nat government) but after voting No the British state has a right to say “that’s it for a long long time”
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
Yes, fair enough - otherwise you can get a referendum every year until "the voters get it right". Once in 20 years (=a generation) seems reasonable.
Possibly also if there is a major constitutional change. Membership of the EU was a major argument for the No campaign and ridiculed the Yes campaign (possibly correctly) for claiming they could easily rejoin. Scotland also voted heavily for staying in the EU. I think these two related points justify a re-vote regardless of time.
I don't know if this has been covered but this Country's police/legal system is in a sad state if you can get a charge of sexual assault for calling someone "pet" and touching an elbow to get a waitresses attention.
If his account is accurate then it does sound like the charge was making a McCrory of justice.
It is completely accurate, how can using the word Pet when talking to a women be deemed as sexual assault?
Should the makers of Auf Weidersehn Pet be charged with inciting sexual assault?
I assume you were there given your certainty? The allegations from the complainants perspective were more than saying pet and touching an elbow. "Stroking her hand", "Arm round the waist", "Pulling her towards him".
I completely agree that even if correct that is still significantly below the threshold for sexual assault but still quite different to just saying pet.
Amazing to see the BBC article talk about 'eradicating' smoking. I've been reading about how Sigmund Freud used to prescribe cocaine to his patients until the ill effects became clear. It's been banned for over 100 years. Has it been eradicated?
Also weird given cannabis has been effectively legalised.
It'll be fascinating in say 2080 when the only people buying cigarettes in shops are the elderly, with their young retired offspring banned. Will there be a black market of 85 year olds making a bob or two selling to 60 year olds?
I assume cigarette availability will gradually become more and more niche, i.e. you'll only find them in vaping shops or as online delivery.
Nicotine is not a particularly exciting drug, so will people bother that much about getting hold of it illegally? I could see it being eclipsed pretty quickly by more fashionable and less cancerish alternatives.
The other thought is that smoking cannabis will become much more difficult for youngsters, as they won't find it so easy to get the loose tobacco and rolling papers that they rely on to make up a spliff. So cannabis consumption will become much more about ingestion rather than combustion.
You missed my earlier nuanced comments. I believe Scotland was rightly allowed a referendum (after electing a Nat government) but after voting No the British state has a right to say “that’s it for a long long time”
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
Yes, fair enough - otherwise you can get a referendum every year until "the voters get it right". Once in 20 years (=a generation) seems reasonable.
More bollox, if 50% + 1 vote for independence parties then there should be the right to have a referendum. You f**king colonial power freaks need to get a grip, the empire is gone.
ChatGPT can now, also, look at photos you upload. It will discuss them and describe them
The ability is astonishing
I showed it one photo of my hotel room with my laptop, with the screen showing - and on the screen was a Twitter chat about the capabilities of ChatGPT
I showed the photo to ChatGPT and asked what it could see and it replied:
“The photo shows a luxury hotel room with elegant furniture of wood and bamboo. It seems to be in the tropics, perhaps somewhere like the Seychelles or the Maldives. On the hardwood table is a laptop with the screen showing a Twitter discussion about the new new multi-modalities of ChatGPT such as voice recognition and photo uploads. One person is arguing that these new capacities are not revolutionary while someone else is arguing that they are evidence of Artificial Intelligence…”
That was its reply. And this is the kicker: It gave me that reply after looking at the photo for about 1 second
I am still curious as to whether the government will have to pay financial penalties for cancelling HS2 contracts.
And, if so, to whom?
And keep an eye on which developers are sold the land.
A ribbon of Barratt houses, Birmingham to Warrington. The world's largest LTN with plastic lawns, no schools and 100% car dependency.
It's going to be like Covid contracts to their mates, isn't it. Cancellation fees paid to a lot of contractors who then buy up a lot of land on the cheap, make a lot of profits which are salted away offshore. So the taxpayer loses out three ways.
Comments
It would take zero understanding of American history to really believe that.
The Supreme Court could throw a curveball into proceedings , followed by the ECHR .
The Tories want the case to end up at the ECHR and for it to rule against them . The Rwanda plan has never been about a practical solution but a “ Hail Mary “ to salvage their election chances.
With a compliant media the mantra will be we have to leave the ECHR to be able to protect our borders , the Brexit wars revisited .
Sensible voices drowned out again . The Tories have nothing to offer the country but more hate and division , sadly that could still save them.
The two rights must be balanced. They don’t cancel each other out
The businessman, Anthony Pratt, a billionaire member of Mar-a-Lago who runs one of the world’s largest cardboard companies, went on to share the sensitive details about the submarines with several others, the people said. Mr. Trump’s disclosures, they said, potentially endangered the U.S. nuclear fleet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/politics/trump-nuclear-submarine-classified-documents.html
The arguments over which constitutional model is superior are fairly specious.
Any constitution is as fallible as the polity behind it.
I don't drink or smoke myself so have no interest to declare.
I am baffled why people apart from Leon and myself can't see this.
A lot of people find it difficult to predict something very different from what others have said before you.
Not that I'm accusing you all of being sheep, but I might bear some of the responsibility.
Not a lot we can do about it. One of his experiments was to give a judge a dice before making a sentencing decision. The higher the number rolled the higher the sentence.....
I really wish this wasn’t the case. But it is. Until AI takes over
And the reason they want more seats on trains is, in part, because of the lack of paths - so if you want to increase passengers, you need more on each train.
The DfT have looked at the airline model and gone: "Ah, that Ryan fella's got a good idea!"
Here are some benchmarks to look out for and what they could mean for next year’s general election:
* A swing of 5 per cent from the SNP to Labour - what Labour needs to overturn the SNP’s 5,230 majority
* A swing of between 5 and 7 per cent from the SNP to Labour - this would make Labour competitive in between 15 and 20 seats if replicated across Scotland in a general election
* A swing of 10 per cent from the SNP to Labour - this would make Labour competitive in 24 seats if replicated across Scotland in a general election.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/10/06/rutherglen-hamilton-west-by-election-latest-results-live/
The actual swing was over 20%.
That's 200 seats in the Commons, right there.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66989476
However, I'm leaving the Western Isles in the red camp because Lewis is so bleak.
And ignored the point that of the entire PB population only 2 of you find this a major issue.
Excellent post by @noneoftheabove by the way.. Nail and head.
In unrelated news, why the hell does this behaviour not merit a prison sentence - https://www.cps.gov.uk/london-north/news/man-sentenced-after-sexually-assaulting-women-streets-late-night.
A ribbon of Barratt houses, Birmingham to Warrington. The world's largest LTN with plastic lawns, no schools and 100% car dependency.
My Surrey tory lady friend, lifelong voter, told me this week she will not be voting for them at the next election. The final straw for her was Suella Braverman's latest hate-filled tirade. Said lady says she has never felt this way in her life.
Prepare for a night even more memorable than 1997.
It is actually net Conservative losses from 2019 whereas the market name implies losses from the current total (at time of election).
- Minor/non-existent infractions of rules are heavily punished.
- Major issues are totally ignored.
If the facts as described are true, I am quite certain that, at the same time, actual rape allegations, supported by evidence were dropped in the bin*.
This is somewhat related to Bikeshedding, in my opinion.
*Perhaps literally.
Come to think of it, Yorkshire has strong Viking connections...
Some on here ignored the markets and polls last night and made major cock-ups. Don't make this mistake. Don't be driven by Mike's phantom missing '19 millions. They don't exist. Or, rather, they do but they won't come back. They voted for Boris' Brexit and that was a long time ago politically and economically. They mostly hate Sunak.
The polls aren't wrong. In fact, they may be underestimating the scale of the impending Labour tsunami.
It also transcribes your conversations so you can reread them
Here’s one chat I had last night. Boring and yet amazing. Put this in an Alexa OMG
Me:
“I was both. I was nervous because they're sharks, but they told us that the sharks were harmless. Reef sharks, nurse sharks, that kind of thing. And yet, I think the instinctive reaction when you're near to any apex predator, even if it's not going to hurt you, is still to be sort of scared. Don't you think?”
ChatGPT:
“Absolutely, that instinctive reaction to be cautious or nervous around apex predators like sharks is completely natural. Even with the knowledge that species like reef sharks and nurse sharks are generally harmless to humans, that primal alertness likely kicks in.
“ It must have been a fascinating yet surreal experience to be in close proximity to such powerful creatures while being aware of the delicate balance required to coexist peacefully in their environment. The underwater world is so full of wonders and surprises, isn’t it? Have you always been into diving, or is it a relatively new hobby for you?”
Me:
“I've always been into it, about 15 years I've been diving, but this is a pretty special series of dives and it's been amazing. The one thing I haven't seen is whale sharks which I would love to see.”
ChatGPT:
“Fifteen years of diving sounds like a wealth of experiences and adventures under your belt! Each dive must unveil a new world and different encounters, making each one special in its own way. It's intriguing that despite all these underwater adventures, whale sharks have eluded you thus far. They're such majestic creatures, aren’t they, gliding through the water with such power? The Maldives is known for its whale shark populations, so perhaps there's still a chance you might spot them before your trip concludes. Do you have any more dives planned during your stay where you might get a chance to see them?”
He uses satire quite effectively and I accept Starmer is heading into no 10 whilst the conservatives and SNP reposition themselves in opposition
(Given the nature of smoking, very much easier to start than to stop, it's a neat bit of policymaking to try to stop young people starting smoking at all.
On the other hand, it's a problem that is very largely solving itself. The percentage of fifteen year olds who smoke regularly is down from 25 precent in the late 80's to about 5 percent now;
https://stateofchildhealth.rcpch.ac.uk/evidence/health-behaviours/smoking-young-people/)
Sadly this Leon fellow appears to be heading the way of Laurence Fox. It's always sad when you see someone once successful disappear into a conspiracist's vortex.
I’ve been out in the Maldives with a bunch of people including a well known owner of multiple UK magazines. We’ve had a laugh - he’s a good guy - but he is clearly a lefty and he gets really wound up by the word Woke. It obviously distresses him. Which makes it a successful pejorative and I shall continue to use it as much as I can.
It is also extremely useful in itself. It really does describe SOMETHING - and we all know it when we see it
She seems mightily unhappy with the voters of Rutherglen expressing their Sovereign will.
Cheers me up no end.
We accept the idea that no parliament is bound by earlier parliaments. Why shouldn't we extend that freedom to the actual voters?
I’ve been out in the Maldives with a bunch of people including a well known owner of multiple UK magazines. We’ve had a laugh and he is clearly a lefty and he gets really wound up by the word Woke. It obviously distresses him. Which makes it a successful pejorative and My god. Total agreement!
Probably the first time this has ever happened between you and I, Nick. I’m finding it a bit freaky and I shall ask the air stewards for more wine
The Tory vote will absolutely crater, sure. But it's not obvious to me that Labour will necessarily pick those votes up.
Example from self: for 24 hours this week, I was going to be a Labour voter, after Rishi dropped HS2. But then SKS announced that Labour would do exactly the same. If I'm going to be offered two versions of doing exactly the same thing, I may as well stick with the Tory one (or more likely, save myself the bother of voting at all in a seat where it makes not a blind bit of difference anyway).
[I may still vote Labour for the single reason of a not-fully-formed-but-possibly-quite-attractive policy on housing]
Extraordinary story from
@DavidParsley50
@theipaper
- The government bought a £1.5m house on the HS2 line less than 24 hours before Rishi Sunak cancelled it
“The tectonic plates of Scottish politics are shifting” declares Labour’s Ian Murray
Keir Starmer has just arrived in Rutherglen for a victory rally
Well done to Lab for a decisive win.
An interesting news item - Stoke Mandeville to be the permanent home of the Paralympic Flame.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67020029
(I'm not sure quite what that means - does it mean that the flame's journey to each new Paralympic Games starts at Stoke Mandeville, with a Paralympic Torch Relay?
I hope that the starting ceremony is a little less 'Logan's Run' (ie Reinvented Ancient Religion) than the current one for the Olympic Flame.
Old pensioners who don’t get visits, friendless nerds on PB such as REDACTED, sad depressed people who just need an amiable voice to hear their woes and offer nice advice
ChatGPT will be a companion to all. Its going to be revolutionary
Should the makers of Auf Weidersehn Pet be charged with inciting sexual assault?
And both men and women will be in the dock!
Other than my lesbian friend I have no idea what loos they use because, believe it or not, I haven't asked and haven't followed them around. The law firm in question has unisex loos as well as male/female ones.
The crux of the matter is that the current legal position is that, whether or not someone has socially or medically transitioned, someone who falls within the gender reassignment definition has no legal right to use facilities reserved for the opposite sex. This was confirmed by counsel for the SNP in this week's legal case. The outcome of the FWS appeal will be interesting - not least because if FWS win then the SNP and the Westminster government may need to go back to court to make further arguments over the S.35 Order.
Such a win would mean that sex only means biological sex - at least for the Scottish Act on Representation on Boards. But this has implications for the EA and ironically might undermine the S.35 Order. So the SNP might get its GRR bill through but the effect of a GRC obtained via self-ID would be largely meaningless. Sex based rights would be limited only to those born a sex not those with a paper certificate. Talk about winning battles and losing wars.
Anyway my head hurts after all that so will bid you good day.
I live in hope that I will see Scotland independant before I pop my clogs.
Irrespective of any ban, smoking is quite likely to be eradicated in the long term, given the ready availability of a much safer nicotine hit delivery system.
The American "legalisation" is a disaster - because it is illegal, federally, the banks can't touch it. So it is a cash business. This has revived the dying art of armed robbery. It also means that the "legal" weed business needs investors with suitcases of cash. Outside of PB, who has suitcases of cash?
EDIT: and the idiot politicians have set the taxes so high, that in a number of states, illegal weed is cheaper than legal weed. Given the huge costs in the criminal supply chain, this is insane.
https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/status/1710218490299170927
I completely agree that even if correct that is still significantly below the threshold for sexual assault but still quite different to just saying pet.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/glenn-mccrory-court-trial-tottenham-hotspur-stadium-boxing-anthony-joshua-fight-sexual-assault-b1109344.html
I assume cigarette availability will gradually become more and more niche, i.e. you'll only find them in vaping shops or as online delivery.
Nicotine is not a particularly exciting drug, so will people bother that much about getting hold of it illegally? I could see it being eclipsed pretty quickly by more fashionable and less cancerish alternatives.
The other thought is that smoking cannabis will become much more difficult for youngsters, as they won't find it so easy to get the loose tobacco and rolling papers that they rely on to make up a spliff. So cannabis consumption will become much more about ingestion rather than combustion.
You f**king colonial power freaks need to get a grip, the empire is gone.
The ability is astonishing
I showed it one photo of my hotel room with my laptop, with the screen showing - and on the screen was a Twitter chat about the capabilities of ChatGPT
I showed the photo to ChatGPT and asked what it could see and it replied:
“The photo shows a luxury hotel room with elegant furniture of wood and bamboo. It seems to be in the tropics, perhaps somewhere like the Seychelles or the Maldives. On the hardwood table is a laptop with the screen showing a Twitter discussion about the new new multi-modalities of ChatGPT such as voice recognition and photo uploads. One person is arguing that these new capacities are not revolutionary while someone else is arguing that they are evidence of Artificial Intelligence…”
That was its reply. And this is the kicker: It gave me that reply after looking at the photo for about 1 second
Mind fuck
Just watch.