1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005. 2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
Given that government legislation tends to do nothing more than make peoples lives more complicated and miserable, this lack of legislation is surely a good thing?
There are times when that's true. There are also times - now, for example - when the nation's institutions are in need of determined reform.
Though I'd agree that the less the current lot do, the better. Also, the sooner they're gone, ditto.
I'm sure Labour will have 50 bills ready to go on day one!
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
Are you seriously still stuck on this?
1) You, personally, do not need to have accurate numbers. It makes absolutely no difference to you, and there is not some magic number of deaths which would push Israel from being in the right to being in the wrong.
2) Hamas' official number is probably ballpark accurate for deaths of Gazans due to the conflict since October 7. The issues with it are a) you have no idea how many of those deaths were caused directly by Hamas (eg: misfiring rockets, deliberate attacks on fleeing human shields who'd been ordered to remain in place instead of following evacuation orders, random murder of gay people just because they can), and b) it does not break down between combatants - ie, legitimate military targets - and innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) All the deaths are on Hamas anyway, since they started this war and continue to deliberately place their own people in harm's way by use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This is, in case it needs to be repeated, a war crime.
I mean, I responded to someone posting about the question "Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?". The answer, in my mind, is "it's the best we have" and I therefore feel if anyone thinks otherwise, it is incumbent on them to say what source is better.
The death toll discussed regarding Hamas' attack on Israel doesn't distinguish between "legitimate military targets" and civilians; indeed very little coverage was given to the attacks on "legitimate military targets" near the border fence. Should I remove ~350 from the Israeli Oct 7th death count based on this?
On the last point we just fundamentally disagree - even if you take the position that Hamas is only motivated by pure evil and hatred, Israel had other options as a response that did not include dropping more bombs on Gaza in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in a year. How many dead Hamas soldiers make it okay to kill 4,000 children? I think Hamas' targeting of civilians is morally abhorrent, and it is also morally abhorrent when Israel does it too. Why do you feel the need to absolve the state of Israel for what it is doing, for what the UN is calling a potential genocide?
The breakdown of the Israeli death toll on October 7 between military and civilian targets has been widely reported: current tally is around 300 soldiers killed, plus I think a small number of police. Over a thousand civilians dead, in other words. Again, I can see no universe in which the exact numbers on either side should matter to you, and it is obvious in any case that it is not "okay to kill 4,000 children" based on another number being above or below a given threshold.
On the last point: provide evidence that Israel is "targeting civilians". The IDF is the most heavily scrutinised military in the world, and in four weeks of a heavy bombing campaign, the closest anyone's come to accusing them of misconduct turned out to be caused by the other side, who then exaggerated the effects.
That's certainly a way to view what Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza has been viewed as.
Do you think that the 10,000 dead Palestinians, including 4,000 dead children, just happen? Do you think that this method of bombing housing blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and UN schools is the only way to find and kill Hamas soldiers? Do you think the statements from Israeli politicians of "killing human animals" or turning Gaza into "a city of tents. There will be no buildings" of individuals and organisations making no distinction between Hamas and Palestinians as a whole do not somehow shed light on why that civilian death toll seems to high?
Why have deaths on the West Bank increased since Oct 7th, where there is no Hamas? Why are settlers, supported by IDF soldiers, killing more people and taking more land - where there is no Hamas?
Could it be because the state of Israel has a stated policy position to have all the land held by Palestinians as part of their state? People decry "from the river to the sea" but Israeli politicians go to the UN using maps that show Israel without any space for Gaza or the West bank and that isn't an issue? That maybe Netanyahu citing a biblical genocide that refers to "[slaying] both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"" could, in fact, be a bit mask off?
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Shut up about Independence and spend a half century or so proving you can look after yourselves with all your devolved powers ... not tempted by that?
I'm not trying to persuade a haggis-smeared scotch ideologue like @Theuniondivvie that this is good. His whole life is bound up with this cause
I am describing the realpolitik of the situation
Ah well Sindy is one of those topics where I've long sussed you out, isn't it. There's no sense or logic to your position, it's a visceral dislike of uppity Scots (ie those who don't recognize the 'G' in 'GB') combined with a hefty dose of trolling.
No, I'm a British patriot, and I don't want Britain broken up. We've been through this. You lack any ability to get inside the mind of someone who thinks like that, it's one of your distressing failings, as we established
You don't even like the Union Jack on your Labour Party membership card. I do, I might even join, as well as vote for them
"Tory members want me to save their party, but I’m afraid it’s too late Perhaps after the next election, when there are fewer Tory MPs, the chance to realign the centre of British politics will come Nigel Farage"
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005. 2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
Given that government legislation tends to do nothing more than make peoples lives more complicated and miserable, this lack of legislation is surely a good thing?
There are times when that's true. There are also times - now, for example - when the nation's institutions are in need of determined reform.
Though I'd agree that the less the current lot do, the better. Also, the sooner they're gone, ditto.
I'm sure Labour will have 50 bills ready to go on day one!
Well they have done that before. (52 in 97; 58 in 2005)
I'm not really sure what to expect from a Starmer administration.
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
Yes, the planes come out of the UK, but by not antagonising the Saudis, you increase the chance that he bows to Western pressure to start pumping more of the black stuff, instead of keeping the price up and letting the Russians fund their war.
I think the German political class and business elite would prefer that Ukraine lose and do so quickly so they can get back to doing business with Russia.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
"Tory members want me to save their party, but I’m afraid it’s too late Perhaps after the next election, when there are fewer Tory MPs, the chance to realign the centre of British politics will come Nigel Farage"
Before Nigel can "save" the Conservatives he's got to become an MP... on past form (how many times has he blown his chance of winning a seat in Westminster?) that might not be very easy
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Well, given that Holyrood needs the express permission of the British people, in the British parliament at Westminster, if Holyrood ever wants another indyref, then yes you should indeed care what British people outside Scotland think. We hold the keys to the indy-door. The fact you won't acknowledge this says rather a lot
Who’s not acknowledging it? I’m quite happy to state that the same people who inflicted a 13 year shitberg of Toryism and Brexit on Scotland will keep electing pols who will obstruct a second Indy ref whatever the circumstances because they’re scared they’d lose it. The idea that a bunch of reactionary Spectatorites can or should be negotiated with on the issue is for the birds.
So, how are you gonna persuade the British people, via the British parliament, that they should allow Sindyref?
Or are you just gonna sit there in your soiled and festering adult-nappy of incontinent Nat grievance, wailing for someone to do something? Coz that's what you've done so far
Big ‘I AM relevant to this situation even if I’m not’ foot stamping energy.
1. The most words in a monarch's speech since 2005. 2. The fewest Bills in a monarch's speech since 2014.
Many words. Minimal action.
Given that government legislation tends to do nothing more than make peoples lives more complicated and miserable, this lack of legislation is surely a good thing?
There are times when that's true. There are also times - now, for example - when the nation's institutions are in need of determined reform.
Though I'd agree that the less the current lot do, the better. Also, the sooner they're gone, ditto.
I'm sure Labour will have 50 bills ready to go on day one!
Well they have done that before. (52 in 97; 58 in 2005)
I'm not really sure what to expect from a Starmer administration.
I think they'll come in with a whirlwind of reformative legislation but then "events" will quickly blow them off course.
I can see the next Parliament turning out like 74-79 but I hope I'm wrong and things become better, quickly.
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
Yes, the planes come out of the UK, but by not antagonising the Saudis, you increase the chance that he bows to Western pressure to start pumping more of the black stuff, instead of keeping the price up and letting the Russians fund their war.
I think the German political class and business elite would prefer that Ukraine lose and do so quickly so they can get back to doing business with Russia.
I think that is a little unfair. They would be equally happy with Russia losing quickly so things could get back to normal. Its the current impasse that is causing concern (and something close to a recession in Germany).
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Shut up about Independence and spend a half century or so proving you can look after yourselves with all your devolved powers ... not tempted by that?
I'm not trying to persuade a haggis-smeared scotch ideologue like @Theuniondivvie that this is good. His whole life is bound up with this cause
I am describing the realpolitik of the situation
Ah well Sindy is one of those topics where I've long sussed you out, isn't it. There's no sense or logic to your position, it's a visceral dislike of uppity Scots (ie those who don't recognize the 'G' in 'GB') combined with a hefty dose of trolling.
No, I'm a British patriot, and I don't want Britain broken up. We've been through this. You lack any ability to get inside the mind of someone who thinks like that, it's one of your distressing failings, as we established
You don't even like the Union Jack on your Labour Party membership card. I do, I might even join, as well as vote for them
This failure of imagination is widespread. Practically no-one in the Yes movement has ever understood the visceral attachment that many Scots have to their British identity. They are either traitors or just deluded, apparently. Scotland is shaped by its "Britishness". Its a defining characteristic. History didnt stop with Robert the Bruce (who was a Norman, anyway)
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
Sorry, but your first paragraph is incorrect. Sturgeon’s shift to the left has increased independence support from 45% to (checks notes) 45%
Great to hear what you think Scotland should do. I‘m sure Scotland will think on after hearing this.
Shut up about Independence and spend a half century or so proving you can look after yourselves with all your devolved powers ... not tempted by that?
Once major influencer Leon pops his clogs it may not take quite so long for Westminster to soften up.
@Leon is correct in his analysis though, isn't he? A referendum and Scottish independence clearly isn't happening any time soon?
Define soon?
In any case, Leon, or whatever fckng name he was calling himself then, held that position in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 etc.
I would say "soon" in this context would be the next 5 to 10 years. Scotland is swinging towards Labour (along with the rest of the country) so that takes us to 2030 (2029 to be exact)
Beyond that who know's?
The best chance for the SNP to rise again and Scottish independence to come back to the table will be when we get the next cycle of Tory government I suppose, but who know's when that will be?
Everybody knows that Brexit has doomed the Union, just like it has destroyed the economy. Loads of the Remainers on here said so.
So the poll is clearly wrong.
Yes, and let's not forget the incredible wave of YES supporting young people, about to overwhelm all the sad old dying NO voters. All those YES voting 15 year olds in 2014 will now be able to vote, and all the octogenarian NO voters will now be dead, so the YES vote will have surged past the oh
Relying on demographic shifts to do your work for you is so often The God That Fails.
Twenty one years after the book was published, we’re still waiting for the Emerging Democratic Majority to emerge in the US.
People get more conservative as they grow older. Quite why this obvious fact passes by the commentariat is bewildering.
Otoh hand some Tory **** (I still hesitate to use the PB Tory approved epithet for one's political opponents) have been Tory **** all their lives, as is evinced on here day in day out.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
Are you seriously still stuck on this?
1) You, personally, do not need to have accurate numbers. It makes absolutely no difference to you, and there is not some magic number of deaths which would push Israel from being in the right to being in the wrong.
2) Hamas' official number is probably ballpark accurate for deaths of Gazans due to the conflict since October 7. The issues with it are a) you have no idea how many of those deaths were caused directly by Hamas (eg: misfiring rockets, deliberate attacks on fleeing human shields who'd been ordered to remain in place instead of following evacuation orders, random murder of gay people just because they can), and b) it does not break down between combatants - ie, legitimate military targets - and innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) All the deaths are on Hamas anyway, since they started this war and continue to deliberately place their own people in harm's way by use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This is, in case it needs to be repeated, a war crime.
I mean, I responded to someone posting about the question "Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?". The answer, in my mind, is "it's the best we have" and I therefore feel if anyone thinks otherwise, it is incumbent on them to say what source is better.
The death toll discussed regarding Hamas' attack on Israel doesn't distinguish between "legitimate military targets" and civilians; indeed very little coverage was given to the attacks on "legitimate military targets" near the border fence. Should I remove ~350 from the Israeli Oct 7th death count based on this?
On the last point we just fundamentally disagree - even if you take the position that Hamas is only motivated by pure evil and hatred, Israel had other options as a response that did not include dropping more bombs on Gaza in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in a year. How many dead Hamas soldiers make it okay to kill 4,000 children? I think Hamas' targeting of civilians is morally abhorrent, and it is also morally abhorrent when Israel does it too. Why do you feel the need to absolve the state of Israel for what it is doing, for what the UN is calling a potential genocide?
The breakdown of the Israeli death toll on October 7 between military and civilian targets has been widely reported: current tally is around 300 soldiers killed, plus I think a small number of police. Over a thousand civilians dead, in other words. Again, I can see no universe in which the exact numbers on either side should matter to you, and it is obvious in any case that it is not "okay to kill 4,000 children" based on another number being above or below a given threshold.
On the last point: provide evidence that Israel is "targeting civilians". The IDF is the most heavily scrutinised military in the world, and in four weeks of a heavy bombing campaign, the closest anyone's come to accusing them of misconduct turned out to be caused by the other side, who then exaggerated the effects.
That's certainly a way to view what Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza has been viewed as.
Do you think that the 10,000 dead Palestinians, including 4,000 dead children, just happen? Do you think that this method of bombing housing blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and UN schools is the only way to find and kill Hamas soldiers? Do you think the statements from Israeli politicians of "killing human animals" or turning Gaza into "a city of tents. There will be no buildings" of individuals and organisations making no distinction between Hamas and Palestinians as a whole do not somehow shed light on why that civilian death toll seems to high?
Why have deaths on the West Bank increased since Oct 7th, where there is no Hamas? Why are settlers, supported by IDF soldiers, killing more people and taking more land - where there is no Hamas?
Could it be because the state of Israel has a stated policy position to have all the land held by Palestinians as part of their state? People decry "from the river to the sea" but Israeli politicians go to the UN using maps that show Israel without any space for Gaza or the West bank and that isn't an issue? That maybe Netanyahu citing a biblical genocide that refers to "[slaying] both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"" could, in fact, be a bit mask off?
I think I'm probably wasting my time her, but one more go: 1) Amnesty has a long history of anti-Israel sentiment, and alleged ties to Islamist movements. Some details here; I'm sure you can find more fairly easily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Israel 2) Yes, I think this is (unfortunately) the only way to find and kill Hamas soldiers. You're welcome to suggest alternatives. 3) Citation needed for the civilian death toll "feels too high". What are you comparing it against? What even is there to compare against? Why did Israel bother to evacuate Gaza City if they don't care about casualties? Why are they continuing to keep escape routes open for civilians still left on the wrong side of the Israeli line, and why are Hamas trying to prevent them from doing so? 4) You are flat wrong that Hamas are not on the West Bank. The numbers are fewer, sure, but Israel has arrested at least 850 Hamas operatives on the West Bank in the past month, and there are other terrorist organisation present there who are attempting to use the current situation to start a general uprising. 5) That tweet you've quoted is misleading - Netanyahu quoted Deuteronomy 25 17-18, as follows: Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. He did not quote or reference 1 Samuel 15:3.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
Sorry, but your first paragraph is incorrect. Sturgeon’s shift to the left has increased independence support from 45% to (checks notes) 45%
That is picking your data points. According to polling it was over 50%, or at least ahead of NO for a long period of time. The wheels have now come off but they gave a passing impression of a fully working campervan for a long time.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Very good point.
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
I support the union so I don't mind, but, Yes, the moment has passed. The SNP failed to realise that to achieve independence and to do it well you have to be a movement that demonstrates very high levels of competence and also of inclusion. Being a separate state is its own cause, and is neither right nor left, woke nor Burkean. Unless it has high levels of support from all bits of society it will be partisan, and, critically, won't have 'losers consent'. And it needs all this to get to the 60% approx support level which means it is overwhelmingly desired by ordinary people.
The moment passed when Forbes was not made leader.
The "tweak the criteria so the WCA tells us more disabled people are eligible to have certain benefits taken off them" stuff is still there, as is the Renting Law ideas.
I don't think he has time to do the latter competently - but in rental law changes they never do on that and they *always* make something far worse than it was before.
Proposed pension changes seem interesting, but I didn't hear that in the speech.
Strange focus on "improve most popular rail services"- surely there should be a focus on developing new ones where they don't exist or are inadequate? Existing usage seems a very poor guide to where change is needed.
No one who can't go over a traditional footbridge uses my local mainline railway station because it is a 30 minute journey out and 30 minutes back plus a wait in the middle to change from Platform 1 to Platform 2, so no usage *indicates* a need for change.
The bitterness of most of our tame PB ScotNats is interesting. Suppose they gain independence from us, their masters, then that bitterness will only be turned on something or someone else.
It is the bile in their hearts that is the problem, not the governance of the nation.
"Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?"
Human Rights Watch stated that after three decades working in Gaza and conducting its own investigation, it considers Gaza Health Ministry's totals to be reliable.
The United Nations humanitarian office added they use the Gaza Ministry of Health's death totals because they are "clearly sourced".
The US Department of State cites the Gaza Health Ministry's death tolls in its own internal reports.
The Gaza Health Ministry use individual IDs provided to Gazans by the Israeli state, and is also typically the source used by many Israeli news channels (or at least the numbers used by many Israeli news match those numbers given by the Gaza Health Ministry).
A few days ago I asked for a better source, with evidence of why it would be better than the GHM, and all I got was "GHM is Hamas, therefore cannot trust, therefore shrug"
Are you seriously still stuck on this?
1) You, personally, do not need to have accurate numbers. It makes absolutely no difference to you, and there is not some magic number of deaths which would push Israel from being in the right to being in the wrong.
2) Hamas' official number is probably ballpark accurate for deaths of Gazans due to the conflict since October 7. The issues with it are a) you have no idea how many of those deaths were caused directly by Hamas (eg: misfiring rockets, deliberate attacks on fleeing human shields who'd been ordered to remain in place instead of following evacuation orders, random murder of gay people just because they can), and b) it does not break down between combatants - ie, legitimate military targets - and innocent civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
3) All the deaths are on Hamas anyway, since they started this war and continue to deliberately place their own people in harm's way by use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes. This is, in case it needs to be repeated, a war crime.
I mean, I responded to someone posting about the question "Is the Gaza Health Ministry a reliable source of information?". The answer, in my mind, is "it's the best we have" and I therefore feel if anyone thinks otherwise, it is incumbent on them to say what source is better.
The death toll discussed regarding Hamas' attack on Israel doesn't distinguish between "legitimate military targets" and civilians; indeed very little coverage was given to the attacks on "legitimate military targets" near the border fence. Should I remove ~350 from the Israeli Oct 7th death count based on this?
On the last point we just fundamentally disagree - even if you take the position that Hamas is only motivated by pure evil and hatred, Israel had other options as a response that did not include dropping more bombs on Gaza in a week than the US dropped on Afghanistan in a year. How many dead Hamas soldiers make it okay to kill 4,000 children? I think Hamas' targeting of civilians is morally abhorrent, and it is also morally abhorrent when Israel does it too. Why do you feel the need to absolve the state of Israel for what it is doing, for what the UN is calling a potential genocide?
The breakdown of the Israeli death toll on October 7 between military and civilian targets has been widely reported: current tally is around 300 soldiers killed, plus I think a small number of police. Over a thousand civilians dead, in other words. Again, I can see no universe in which the exact numbers on either side should matter to you, and it is obvious in any case that it is not "okay to kill 4,000 children" based on another number being above or below a given threshold.
On the last point: provide evidence that Israel is "targeting civilians". The IDF is the most heavily scrutinised military in the world, and in four weeks of a heavy bombing campaign, the closest anyone's come to accusing them of misconduct turned out to be caused by the other side, who then exaggerated the effects.
That's certainly a way to view what Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza has been viewed as.
Do you think that the 10,000 dead Palestinians, including 4,000 dead children, just happen? Do you think that this method of bombing housing blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and UN schools is the only way to find and kill Hamas soldiers? Do you think the statements from Israeli politicians of "killing human animals" or turning Gaza into "a city of tents. There will be no buildings" of individuals and organisations making no distinction between Hamas and Palestinians as a whole do not somehow shed light on why that civilian death toll seems to high?
Why have deaths on the West Bank increased since Oct 7th, where there is no Hamas? Why are settlers, supported by IDF soldiers, killing more people and taking more land - where there is no Hamas?
Could it be because the state of Israel has a stated policy position to have all the land held by Palestinians as part of their state? People decry "from the river to the sea" but Israeli politicians go to the UN using maps that show Israel without any space for Gaza or the West bank and that isn't an issue? That maybe Netanyahu citing a biblical genocide that refers to "[slaying] both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"" could, in fact, be a bit mask off?
I think I'm probably wasting my time her, but one more go: 1) Amnesty has a long history of anti-Israel sentiment, and alleged ties to Islamist movements. Some details here; I'm sure you can find more fairly easily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Israel 2) Yes, I think this is (unfortunately) the only way to find and kill Hamas soldiers. You're welcome to suggest alternatives. 3) Citation needed for the civilian death toll "feels too high". What are you comparing it against? What even is there to compare against? Why did Israel bother to evacuate Gaza City if they don't care about casualties? Why are they continuing to keep escape routes open for civilians still left on the wrong side of the Israeli line, and why are Hamas trying to prevent them from doing so? 4) You are flat wrong that Hamas are not on the West Bank. The numbers are fewer, sure, but Israel has arrested at least 850 Hamas operatives on the West Bank in the past month, and there are other terrorist organisation present there who are attempting to use the current situation to start a general uprising. 5) That tweet you've quoted is misleading - Netanyahu quoted Deuteronomy 25 17-18, as follows: Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. He did not quote or reference 1 Samuel 15:3.
Yes. Sadly this is a battle which began with the war crime of 7th October. When your enemy denies your right to exist and acts on it, it becomes a fight to the finish. Hamas could have released the hostages (a continuing war crime) and hasn't. Hamas could renounce its aims of destroying Israel, but hasn't. Hamas could surrender and seek terms but hasn't.
This is a modern war in a tiny urban space. How did Hamas think it would go once they had done the 7th October acts?
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Very good point.
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
I support the union so I don't mind, but, Yes, the moment has passed. The SNP failed to realise that to achieve independence and to do it well you have to be a movement that demonstrates very high levels of competence and also of inclusion. Being a separate state is its own cause, and is neither right nor left, woke nor Burkean. Unless it has high levels of support from all bits of society it will be partisan, and, critically, won't have 'losers consent'. And it needs all this to get to the 60% approx support level which means it is overwhelmingly desired by ordinary people.
The moment passed when Forbes was not made leader.
Albeit Forbes is right of Sunak on some issues, let alone Starmer
The bitterness of most of our tame PB ScotNats is interesting. Suppose they gain independence from us, their masters, then that bitterness will only be turned on something or someone else.
It is the bile in their hearts that is the problem, not the governance of the nation.
It is interesting to see the discussions below the line on Wings. The incredible vitriol, bordering on hatred, that the cybernats used to pour on Unionists is now very largely focused on the SNP. And they are so much better at vitriol than anyone else.
"Tory members want me to save their party, but I’m afraid it’s too late Perhaps after the next election, when there are fewer Tory MPs, the chance to realign the centre of British politics will come Nigel Farage"
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
Sorry, but your first paragraph is incorrect. Sturgeon’s shift to the left has increased independence support from 45% to (checks notes) 45%
That is picking your data points. According to polling it was over 50%, or at least ahead of NO for a long period of time. The wheels have now come off but they gave a passing impression of a fully working campervan for a long time.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Very good point.
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
I support the union so I don't mind, but, Yes, the moment has passed. The SNP failed to realise that to achieve independence and to do it well you have to be a movement that demonstrates very high levels of competence and also of inclusion. Being a separate state is its own cause, and is neither right nor left, woke nor Burkean. Unless it has high levels of support from all bits of society it will be partisan, and, critically, won't have 'losers consent'. And it needs all this to get to the 60% approx support level which means it is overwhelmingly desired by ordinary people.
The moment passed when Forbes was not made leader.
Albeit Forbes is right of Sunak on some issues, let alone Starmer
Remember that until recently, Scotland was small c conservative.
I think Germany's problems are (a) an end to cheap Russian enemy (b) lots of people can now do high quality manufacturing, but a lot cheaper than Germany does it.
To give one example, I've driven Japanese cars for 25 years now. They are excellent, reliable, and easy to use. And, a damn sight cheaper than the German equivalents.
A Lexus does not have the badge appeal of the German marques (or German-owned British marques) so it is cheaper.
It's difficult to say with absolute precision, because it's hard to spec. them exactly the same, but I'd say Lexus and BMW are priced about the same.
Lexus RC F Carbon £83,560.00 BMW M4 Competition £82,520.00
I'd say that Lexus has a better reputation than the former premium German marques. BMWs. Audis & Mercedes are the new Vauxhall Corsas.
The Lexus is almost certainly better built but the interiors aren't as good as the upper end of the German big 3's offerings. When I was in Doha earlier this year I took a taxi that was a Toyota Camry. I thought it was a brand new car but it had 240,000km on it. Toyota/Lexus certainly know how to do mass production and quality management.
The Germans have some excellent cars in their ranges (M4 CSL, RS5, GT63) but also quite a lot of utter dross with an amazing amount of cheap materials and engineering shortcuts.
In Dubai the average taxi does 1,000km per day (long and thin city with fast roads, two drivers per car). I’ve seen three-year-old cars (mostly Camrys, and their Korean equivalents) with 1m km on the clock. The clock even has seven digits.
You can support the concept of ID cards but hate the proposed implementation of them under New Labour. There were not enough safeguards around data security.
The creation of a separate “VIP database”, for MPs, their families, and senior officials, was the giveaway.
For me the red flag was that my identity belonged to the card, not to me. If something happened to the data on card and it disagreed with my biometrics then I was the impostor. If the card is also used for almost everything (like phones are today) then I am instantly an outcast.
Today's phone apps are a good comparison. If something goes wrong with (say) your ApplePay app people just say "It's not working", it is not a big deal. If you need documents to prove your identity, you can choose from a number of them. It all stays in my/your control.
ID cards should not be given too much agency. At the end of the day if the card and I disagree then it is wrong and must be replaced. I am the living specification for my own identity.
Whereas turn it on its head and it is a very sensible idea. By turn on its head I mean the underlying documents and data are the thing - like the credit card on Apple Pay or the airline boarding pass in Apple Wallet and we each have a single convenient card, or app, that links to all the ID information we need including passport data. Just scan your smartphone at the border when arriving in a new country and that immediately shares your visa status, or number of days in Schengen in last 180.
Government can then access the aggregate anonymised data to help with public policy and planning of services.
The point is that the ONLY task of the card is verification, but a failure of that verification should not lock you out of everything. If the card is the access-key to obtaining a service then any failure locks you out of that service.
If the proposal for the card had been an alternative to having to offer a passport and utility bill then everything would have been fine. Card failure would simply result in you having to use other methods, but at least you would not be denied access to all sorts of systems / benefits.
There was even talk at one point of using this thing as a cash card, having all your medical data on it, etc. Anyone who hacked the system would have everything.
It was the stupidest idea ever, which is probably why they will try again to implement it.
Central bank digital currencies, coming soon…
Those actually sound like they will be done properly, providing an alternative for online transactions that frees everyone from the VISA/MasterCard duopoly.
Let’s just say that the disadvantages considerably outweigh the advantages, for all the reasons of ID cards and more.
You’re replacing a bank that you generally trust with a government you don’t trust, who can un-person you at their will (or by accident).
See the example of the Canadian truckers de-banked by Trudeau during the pandemic, or people having their identity stolen being told that the system is right and they need to go and get new fingerprints.
Things might have changed since I last read anything about this, but I didn't think it was going to be centralised in that way. They were talking about an open system.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Very good point.
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
Not entirely in Catalonia. Spain now has a hung parliament with Catalan nationalists having the balance of power and they are demanding pardons for leading nationalists involved in the ilegal 2017 independence referendum and UDI declaration
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
As Robert Smithson puts it, there's no political rallying cry so potent as "X is to blame", (for everything that's wrong in one's life or wider society).
So a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" works to generate an endless sense of grievance, for rights can never be absolute, and entitlements can never be fulfilled.
Sturgeon nearly won. Fortunately, she and her supporters got high on their own supply.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Very good point.
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
I support the union so I don't mind, but, Yes, the moment has passed. The SNP failed to realise that to achieve independence and to do it well you have to be a movement that demonstrates very high levels of competence and also of inclusion. Being a separate state is its own cause, and is neither right nor left, woke nor Burkean. Unless it has high levels of support from all bits of society it will be partisan, and, critically, won't have 'losers consent'. And it needs all this to get to the 60% approx support level which means it is overwhelmingly desired by ordinary people.
The moment passed when Forbes was not made leader.
Albeit Forbes is right of Sunak on some issues, let alone Starmer
She actually has some belief in the benefits private enterprise. Dangerous I tell you, she's dangerous.
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
Yes, the planes come out of the UK, but by not antagonising the Saudis, you increase the chance that he bows to Western pressure to start pumping more of the black stuff, instead of keeping the price up and letting the Russians fund their war.
I think the German political class and business elite would prefer that Ukraine lose and do so quickly so they can get back to doing business with Russia.
I think that is a little unfair. They would be equally happy with Russia losing quickly so things could get back to normal. Its the current impasse that is causing concern (and something close to a recession in Germany).
The only Germany that Russia can live with, under its current dictator, is something that would bear a close resemblance to East Germany. There is no "normal" if Ukraine were to lose. Despite the plethora of German fellow travellers, a democratic Germany is not negotiable.
In any event the only threat to Ukrainian freedom from the West is from the neo Fascist wing of the GOP and a return of Trump. Listening to Trump on trial though, I think his health may not survive the next six months.
The land war may be deadlocked for a time, but the latest Naval operation by the ZSU is a gentle reminder that in many ways the tide against Russia is running a little faster. The Putin regime is very fragile, and it would a foolish for Westerners to assume that it survives in the long term.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
As Robert Smithson puts it, there's no political rallying cry so potent as "X is to blame", (for everything that's wrong in one's life or wider society).
So a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" works to generate an endless sense of grievance, for rights can never be absolute, and entitlements can never be fulfilled.
Sturgeon nearly won. Fortunately, she and her supporters got high on their own supply.
No, Salmond nearly won. Sturgeon replaced him after he didn’t.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Very good point.
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
I support the union so I don't mind, but, Yes, the moment has passed. The SNP failed to realise that to achieve independence and to do it well you have to be a movement that demonstrates very high levels of competence and also of inclusion. Being a separate state is its own cause, and is neither right nor left, woke nor Burkean. Unless it has high levels of support from all bits of society it will be partisan, and, critically, won't have 'losers consent'. And it needs all this to get to the 60% approx support level which means it is overwhelmingly desired by ordinary people.
The moment passed when Forbes was not made leader.
Albeit Forbes is right of Sunak on some issues, let alone Starmer
Remember that until recently, Scotland was small c conservative.
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
Yes, the planes come out of the UK, but by not antagonising the Saudis, you increase the chance that he bows to Western pressure to start pumping more of the black stuff, instead of keeping the price up and letting the Russians fund their war.
Biden sure as hell wants to see ‘gas prices’ come down in election year, and so will Sunak.
Germany banned arms sales (with exceptions) to Saudi Arabia in 2018 because of Saudi involvement in the war in Yemen. A complete ban followed the murder of Kashoggi. Last year the ban was relaxed, and this year it was relaxed further - no doubt both times at least partly hoping Saudi Arabia would be helpful with oil production. Instead it looks like KSA is choosing to cooperate with Putin on oil production cuts.
In the medium term will it prove wise to sell as much advanced weaponry as possible to a potentially hostile country?
Perhaps Germany should have thought about these questions of morality over realpolitik, before they closed down their nuclear capacity, leaving themselves dependent on a rogue state like Russia to keep the lights on and factories open.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
As Robert Smithson puts it, there's no political rallying cry so potent as "X is to blame", (for everything that's wrong in one's life or wider society).
So a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" works to generate an endless sense of grievance, for rights can never be absolute, and entitlements can never be fulfilled.
Sturgeon nearly won. Fortunately, she and her supporters got high on their own supply.
Fortunately she ultimately lacked bottle. If she had said that the 56/59 Scottish MPs elected in 2015 were going to do the same as Sinn Fein and simply refuse to participate in the UK Parliament we would have had a constitutional crisis on our hands.
"Tory members want me to save their party, but I’m afraid it’s too late Perhaps after the next election, when there are fewer Tory MPs, the chance to realign the centre of British politics will come Nigel Farage"
Before Nigel can "save" the Conservatives he's got to become an MP... on past form (how many times has he blown his chance of winning a seat in Westminster?) that might not be very easy
Seven I think. The only one he ever came close in was South Thanet in 2015 where he got 32%. But he is a spent force and should accept he did what he set out to do and leave it at that.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
Very good point.
Its interesting how indy is slowly dying as a practical political issue in Catalonia. Spanish govt simply stood firm and wouldnt allow it. Looked to be an unsustainable position at the time but slowly, quietly, has become the apparently unshakeable status quo. Scotland and Catalonia not the same (obvs) but there is nothing inevitable about any of this.
I support the union so I don't mind, but, Yes, the moment has passed. The SNP failed to realise that to achieve independence and to do it well you have to be a movement that demonstrates very high levels of competence and also of inclusion. Being a separate state is its own cause, and is neither right nor left, woke nor Burkean. Unless it has high levels of support from all bits of society it will be partisan, and, critically, won't have 'losers consent'. And it needs all this to get to the 60% approx support level which means it is overwhelmingly desired by ordinary people.
The moment passed when Forbes was not made leader.
Albeit Forbes is right of Sunak on some issues, let alone Starmer
She actually has some belief in the benefits private enterprise. Dangerous I tell you, she's dangerous.
If she were to take over from Yousaf while Labour were in power, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Scottish government were to the right of the UK government, although I expect the next Scottish government to be a Lab, Lib Dem, Green alliance which would be the the left of a UK Labour government.
"Tory members want me to save their party, but I’m afraid it’s too late Perhaps after the next election, when there are fewer Tory MPs, the chance to realign the centre of British politics will come Nigel Farage"
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
A lot of truth in that. Bear in mind, though, that a Forbes ascendancy would mean ditching in its entirety the Sturgeon political strategy (a progressive alliance to deliver Indy). Could well and truly split the party. Can you imagine Mhairi Black, the darlng of the activists, going along with it?
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
Yes, the planes come out of the UK, but by not antagonising the Saudis, you increase the chance that he bows to Western pressure to start pumping more of the black stuff, instead of keeping the price up and letting the Russians fund their war.
I think the German political class and business elite would prefer that Ukraine lose and do so quickly so they can get back to doing business with Russia.
I think that is a little unfair. They would be equally happy with Russia losing quickly so things could get back to normal. Its the current impasse that is causing concern (and something close to a recession in Germany).
The only Germany that Russia can live with, under its current dictator, is something that would bear a close resemblance to East Germany. There is no "normal" if Ukraine were to lose. Despite the plethora of German fellow travellers, a democratic Germany is not negotiable.
In any event the only threat to Ukrainian freedom from the West is from the neo Fascist wing of the GOP and a return of Trump. Listening to Trump on trial though, I think his health may not survive the next six months.
The land war may be deadlocked for a time, but the latest Naval operation by the ZSU is a gentle reminder that in many ways the tide against Russia is running a little faster. The Putin regime is very fragile, and it would a foolish for Westerners to assume that it survives in the long term.
I think that we should measure the remaining time of the Putin regime in months not years but there is no guarantee that his replacement will take a different tack.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
As Robert Smithson puts it, there's no political rallying cry so potent as "X is to blame", (for everything that's wrong in one's life or wider society).
So a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" works to generate an endless sense of grievance, for rights can never be absolute, and entitlements can never be fulfilled.
Sturgeon nearly won. Fortunately, she and her supporters got high on their own supply.
Fortunately she ultimately lacked bottle. If she had said that the 56/59 Scottish MPs elected in 2015 were going to do the same as Sinn Fein and simply refuse to participate in the UK Parliament we would have had a constitutional crisis on our hands.
Yes, that was the truly dangerous moment, in retrospect. Alternatively, she could have done that in late 2016, after the Brexit referendum. That MIGHT have built up sufficient steam to crash HMS Britannia on the rocks of Nattery
Luckily, she was a better tactician than strategist, and Yousaf is neither
The indy dream is not dead, but it's a long road back from here
"Tory members want me to save their party, but I’m afraid it’s too late Perhaps after the next election, when there are fewer Tory MPs, the chance to realign the centre of British politics will come Nigel Farage"
The frightening thing about the current state of our politics is that the current government is so s**t that Labour isn’t being driven to address the hard decisions that anyone governing our country in the long-run national interest desperately needs to tackle.
So we have to gamble on Labour taking power and hope that they face up to the big issues once elected, rather than reverting to the Blairite way of short-term ducking and spinning, after four years of which we will simply be deeper in the mire.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
As Robert Smithson puts it, there's no political rallying cry so potent as "X is to blame", (for everything that's wrong in one's life or wider society).
So a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" works to generate an endless sense of grievance, for rights can never be absolute, and entitlements can never be fulfilled.
Sturgeon nearly won. Fortunately, she and her supporters got high on their own supply.
Sturgeon managed to fool people for far longer than she should have been able to, largely because in contrast to the Tory government in Westminster she gave off a feeling of competence.
She also gave lefties something to cheer about in a decade which hasn’t been particularly kind to the political left. See also Saint Jacinda for another example.
They nearly did it again. Maxwell was walking after seeing half a review but the second half proved the ball was going over the top and so he had to come back again
The heart has really gone out of the Aussies here.
Note to German government, you might want to throw everything at letting the Ukranians win the war, and not antagonise the Saudis by refusing to export Typhoons at the same time.
A Saudi order doesn't help the Germans much as Saudi jets come off the British FAL. The German FAL will be busy with the 38 'Quadriga' jets for the GAF until 2027 so they don't have the same political hemorrhoid that's on the verge of bursting like the British do with the imminent end of Eurofighter production at Wharton. The UK government don't want to be forced into a follow on Typhoon order, as they surely would be if the alternative were shuttering Wharton, as that will fuck up Tempest which is already running on the whiff of an oily rag when it comes to finances.
Airbus D&S would get to make 48 x centre fuselage sections in Germany for whatever that is worth.
Yes, the planes come out of the UK, but by not antagonising the Saudis, you increase the chance that he bows to Western pressure to start pumping more of the black stuff, instead of keeping the price up and letting the Russians fund their war.
I think the German political class and business elite would prefer that Ukraine lose and do so quickly so they can get back to doing business with Russia.
I think that is a little unfair. They would be equally happy with Russia losing quickly so things could get back to normal. Its the current impasse that is causing concern (and something close to a recession in Germany).
The only Germany that Russia can live with, under its current dictator, is something that would bear a close resemblance to East Germany. There is no "normal" if Ukraine were to lose. Despite the plethora of German fellow travellers, a democratic Germany is not negotiable.
In any event the only threat to Ukrainian freedom from the West is from the neo Fascist wing of the GOP and a return of Trump. Listening to Trump on trial though, I think his health may not survive the next six months.
The land war may be deadlocked for a time, but the latest Naval operation by the ZSU is a gentle reminder that in many ways the tide against Russia is running a little faster. The Putin regime is very fragile, and it would a foolish for Westerners to assume that it survives in the long term.
I think that we should measure the remaining time of the Putin regime in months not years but there is no guarantee that his replacement will take a different tack.
What on earth makes you say that?
Putin looks like he is cemented in power as firmly as ever. The Russian economy is doing OK (considering)*. The war is arguably turning in his favour and quite likely to end in an armistice with him holding on to chunks of Ukraine (ie something he can sell as a "win"). I see no internal threats to him. And the idea he is dying has turned out - like so much around this war- to be wishcasting
*The Russian economy: not great but not a disaster zone:
Polls for London Mayor are all over the place. A month or 2 back it was almost neck and neck. Are there problems getting a representative sample in the metropolis? After all, it is another country to the rest of us.
Some put in Corbyn as a candidate which can upend things.
Also, ULEZ was a massive factor just either side of the launch. That anger hasn't entirely gone away (there are enough people still keen to vandalise cameras) but it has faded significantly.
The poll still has Khan running a bit behind national Labour in London, which smells about right.
Yes, that seems right given the burdens of incumbency. He’s winning because he’s Labour, not through “sheer Khan”.
You don't think he's a Khanny operator ?
I’m often surprised by the number of people in London with a negative view of Khan. To me he seems quite bland and hasn’t done very much. The dislike seems to spread across the political spectrum - have heard it from IAlwaysVoteLabour types, who say they will vote for him as the official candidate, but…
The idea that he hasn't done much is utter baloney.
The frightening thing about the current state of our politics is that the current government is so s**t that Labour isn’t being driven to address the hard decisions that anyone governing our country in the long-run national interest desperately needs to tackle.
So we have to gamble on Labour taking power and hope that they face up to the big issues once elected, rather than reverting to the Blairite way of short-term ducking and spinning, after four years of which we will simply be deeper in the mire.
A lot of reforms the country needed in 1997, like introducing PR, didn't happen at that time because Labour won such a big majority. The same thing could happen again next year. It would be better to have a coalition imo.
The frightening thing about the current state of our politics is that the current government is so s**t that Labour isn’t being driven to address the hard decisions that anyone governing our country in the long-run national interest desperately needs to tackle.
So we have to gamble on Labour taking power and hope that they face up to the big issues once elected, rather than reverting to the Blairite way of short-term ducking and spinning, after four years of which we will simply be deeper in the mire.
A lot of reforms the country needed in 1997, like introducing PR, didn't happen at that time because Labour won such a big majority. The same thing could happen again next year. It would be better to have a coalition imo.
Imagine if Blair had said "we're going into the euro" in 1997. He was so popular he could have forced it through with no problem at all, and no need for a popular vote, either. We all adored him (or tolerated him)
The entirety of British history woulda changed. It's weird how he screwed up in so many ways - from his perspective
You can support the concept of ID cards but hate the proposed implementation of them under New Labour. There were not enough safeguards around data security.
The creation of a separate “VIP database”, for MPs, their families, and senior officials, was the giveaway.
For me the red flag was that my identity belonged to the card, not to me. If something happened to the data on card and it disagreed with my biometrics then I was the impostor. If the card is also used for almost everything (like phones are today) then I am instantly an outcast.
Today's phone apps are a good comparison. If something goes wrong with (say) your ApplePay app people just say "It's not working", it is not a big deal. If you need documents to prove your identity, you can choose from a number of them. It all stays in my/your control.
ID cards should not be given too much agency. At the end of the day if the card and I disagree then it is wrong and must be replaced. I am the living specification for my own identity.
Whereas turn it on its head and it is a very sensible idea. By turn on its head I mean the underlying documents and data are the thing - like the credit card on Apple Pay or the airline boarding pass in Apple Wallet and we each have a single convenient card, or app, that links to all the ID information we need including passport data. Just scan your smartphone at the border when arriving in a new country and that immediately shares your visa status, or number of days in Schengen in last 180.
Government can then access the aggregate anonymised data to help with public policy and planning of services.
The point is that the ONLY task of the card is verification, but a failure of that verification should not lock you out of everything. If the card is the access-key to obtaining a service then any failure locks you out of that service.
If the proposal for the card had been an alternative to having to offer a passport and utility bill then everything would have been fine. Card failure would simply result in you having to use other methods, but at least you would not be denied access to all sorts of systems / benefits.
There was even talk at one point of using this thing as a cash card, having all your medical data on it, etc. Anyone who hacked the system would have everything.
It was the stupidest idea ever, which is probably why they will try again to implement it.
Central bank digital currencies, coming soon…
Those actually sound like they will be done properly, providing an alternative for online transactions that frees everyone from the VISA/MasterCard duopoly.
Let’s just say that the disadvantages considerably outweigh the advantages, for all the reasons of ID cards and more.
You’re replacing a bank that you generally trust with a government you don’t trust, who can un-person you at their will (or by accident).
See the example of the Canadian truckers de-banked by Trudeau during the pandemic, or people having their identity stolen being told that the system is right and they need to go and get new fingerprints.
Things might have changed since I last read anything about this, but I didn't think it was going to be centralised in that way. They were talking about an open system.
The open system is Bitcoin.
No.
It would literally be better to have Nigel Farage and Ambrose Evans Pritchard sharing the job of Governor of the Bank of England.
You're confusing two things though surely? Support for SNP in power in Scotland ≠ Support for independence.
As the SNP has moved to the left since 2015, it has left many Independence supporters behind. This has increased since the arrangement with the Greens. So far, there is no significant independence supporting party actually arguing the economic case for independence. The SNP under Alex Salmond increased independence support from 28% to 45%. The prospect of increased prosperity in an independent Scotland will increase support for independence. Increased wokery will not, and has not.
I would be so delighted if this were true but I am afraid it is not. The sad fact is that Sturgeon with her shift to the left and indifference about all matters economic came much closer to building a majority for independence than Salmond did. In creating a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" that someone, somewhere, somehow is going to pay for she dealt an almost fatal blow to the bastion of Unionism who won the referendum almost single handed, namely the Scottish Labour party.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
As Robert Smithson puts it, there's no political rallying cry so potent as "X is to blame", (for everything that's wrong in one's life or wider society).
So a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" works to generate an endless sense of grievance, for rights can never be absolute, and entitlements can never be fulfilled.
Sturgeon nearly won. Fortunately, she and her supporters got high on their own supply.
Fortunately she ultimately lacked bottle. If she had said that the 56/59 Scottish MPs elected in 2015 were going to do the same as Sinn Fein and simply refuse to participate in the UK Parliament we would have had a constitutional crisis on our hands.
That was too soon after the 2014 vote to go nuclear. After Brexit maybe better but still wouldn't have worked imo. You need most of the people four square behind you to pull that off, ie not this 50/50 business.
Polls for London Mayor are all over the place. A month or 2 back it was almost neck and neck. Are there problems getting a representative sample in the metropolis? After all, it is another country to the rest of us.
Some put in Corbyn as a candidate which can upend things.
Also, ULEZ was a massive factor just either side of the launch. That anger hasn't entirely gone away (there are enough people still keen to vandalise cameras) but it has faded significantly.
The poll still has Khan running a bit behind national Labour in London, which smells about right.
Yes, that seems right given the burdens of incumbency. He’s winning because he’s Labour, not through “sheer Khan”.
You don't think he's a Khanny operator ?
I’m often surprised by the number of people in London with a negative view of Khan. To me he seems quite bland and hasn’t done very much. The dislike seems to spread across the political spectrum - have heard it from IAlwaysVoteLabour types, who say they will vote for him as the official candidate, but…
The idea that he hasn't done much is utter baloney.
The frightening thing about the current state of our politics is that the current government is so s**t that Labour isn’t being driven to address the hard decisions that anyone governing our country in the long-run national interest desperately needs to tackle.
So we have to gamble on Labour taking power and hope that they face up to the big issues once elected, rather than reverting to the Blairite way of short-term ducking and spinning, after four years of which we will simply be deeper in the mire.
A lot of reforms the country needed in 1997, like introducing PR, didn't happen at that time because Labour won such a big majority. The same thing could happen again next year. It would be better to have a coalition imo.
Imagine if Blair had said "we're going into the euro" in 1997. He was so popular he could have forced it through with no problem at all, and no need for a popular vote, either. We all adored him (or tolerated him)
The entirety of British history woulda changed. It's weird how he screwed up in so many ways - from his perspective
For much of his leadership Blair instinctively ran from anything that could give him any cause to be unpopular. So yes he could have tried to force us into the Euro, but he wouldn’t have done, because that wasn’t his way. Also, as we all know, Gordon Brown was not a fan of the idea.
The frightening thing about the current state of our politics is that the current government is so s**t that Labour isn’t being driven to address the hard decisions that anyone governing our country in the long-run national interest desperately needs to tackle.
So we have to gamble on Labour taking power and hope that they face up to the big issues once elected, rather than reverting to the Blairite way of short-term ducking and spinning, after four years of which we will simply be deeper in the mire.
A lot of reforms the country needed in 1997, like introducing PR, didn't happen at that time because Labour won such a big majority. The same thing could happen again next year. It would be better to have a coalition imo.
Imagine if Blair had said "we're going into the euro" in 1997. He was so popular he could have forced it through with no problem at all, and no need for a popular vote, either. We all adored him (or tolerated him)
The entirety of British history woulda changed. It's weird how he screwed up in so many ways - from his perspective
As with every dislikeable politician, there are always things they get right. The massive efforts put in by Gordon Brown to keep the UK out of the Euro, were undoubtedly his finest hour.
Wait, hang on. I was assumed by the PB Tories that Ulez was an electoral gift.
Surely shume mistake.
If they could arrange for every Labour council to face imminent bankruptcy and make bailing them out conditional on implementing a ULEZ, timed to become operational a month after the GE date, and the Labour councils enthusiastically embraced the idea, defending it as their own - then it would be an electoral gift for the Tories.
They're pretty much there on local government insolvency...
The frightening thing about the current state of our politics is that the current government is so s**t that Labour isn’t being driven to address the hard decisions that anyone governing our country in the long-run national interest desperately needs to tackle.
So we have to gamble on Labour taking power and hope that they face up to the big issues once elected, rather than reverting to the Blairite way of short-term ducking and spinning, after four years of which we will simply be deeper in the mire.
A lot of reforms the country needed in 1997, like introducing PR, didn't happen at that time because Labour won such a big majority. The same thing could happen again next year. It would be better to have a coalition imo.
Imagine if Blair had said "we're going into the euro" in 1997. He was so popular he could have forced it through with no problem at all, and no need for a popular vote, either. We all adored him (or tolerated him)
The entirety of British history woulda changed. It's weird how he screwed up in so many ways - from his perspective
Brown, and Blair's own fear of doing anything unpopular, stopped him.
Polls for London Mayor are all over the place. A month or 2 back it was almost neck and neck. Are there problems getting a representative sample in the metropolis? After all, it is another country to the rest of us.
Some put in Corbyn as a candidate which can upend things.
Also, ULEZ was a massive factor just either side of the launch. That anger hasn't entirely gone away (there are enough people still keen to vandalise cameras) but it has faded significantly.
The poll still has Khan running a bit behind national Labour in London, which smells about right.
Yes, that seems right given the burdens of incumbency. He’s winning because he’s Labour, not through “sheer Khan”.
You don't think he's a Khanny operator ?
I’m often surprised by the number of people in London with a negative view of Khan. To me he seems quite bland and hasn’t done very much. The dislike seems to spread across the political spectrum - have heard it from IAlwaysVoteLabour types, who say they will vote for him as the official candidate, but…
The idea that he hasn't done much is utter baloney.
Ulez Night Tube Ulez-X Crossrail
All them delivered expertly on his watch.
That's the case for him?
Well like them or not, they are major complex projects that he has delivered. The OP was that he was bland "and hasn't done very much".
Yet another example of the "ULZE / Minimum Wage / GDPR / pick-your-own-issue will bring about the end of the world" syndrome, I highlighted earlier.
Hmm. Not so sure about that. Unlike the ULEZ issue, we know that VAT on private schools will have a big impact on both the schools and the parents and it seems inevitable it will put more pressure on the state sector schools. So whther you agree with private education or not, from a practical point of view I very much doubt it will do anything to help wider education spending or improve the lot of state schools.
It's not intended to boost state schools. It's intended to deliver a poke in the eye, to people they don't like.
No this is just posh people making it all about themselves, as usual. The idea is to raise more money for state schools, which the privately educated Tory Cabinet seems not to consider worthy of more money for some mysterious reason. I look forward to my kids' education being properly resourced by a government that treats them as the priority, not the 7% who attend private schools. Also good to correct an unjustifiable anomaly in the tax system.
No - it's a fairy story that independent schools are only attended by "posh people".
I've pointed this out repeatedly.
If you are claiming Rishi Sunak was not posh once them I suspect you are right. His entitlement absolutely originated from his schooling.
And that's the issue. Private education has failed Britain in a massive way over the last few years, perhaps decades and there has to be some payback, some generated market pressure for reform for these essentially failed institutions.
I went to university from a working class town but Tory sympathetic, thinking there was some underpinning to their philosophies. But then I saw for the first time the segregated and clueless idiots (not to mention the idealogues) that would take that flame forward and that wasn't for me, and it confirmed me in my journey to a left centrism. And the last few years shows they learned nothing from three decades of supposed maturity, they are the same segregated, clueless idiots they ever were.
So your have your diversity: black, privately educated lawyers, politicians, accountants, musicians, gay privately educated lawyers, politicians, accountants, musicians. And the private education sector, very international, provides that production line of identikit diverse people.
So, it is not to be kicked just because, it is to be driven in a certain direction because it has failed us and continues to fail us, badly.
What utter rubbish. Our private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, hence parents from all over the world send their children to them.
They certainly don't send their children to the bog standard British comp. What is needed is more free schools, more grammars and closing failing state schools, not attacking our excellent private schools as is the usual Labour way of dragging down to the lowest common denominator
Dunno. Do people send their kids to private schools because they get a good education, or is it just a good way of buying your kids into the ruling class and ensuring they are feather-bedded for the rest of their lives?
Or your sprog is Softy Walter who would get the shit kicked out of him at the local comp.
Or was too thick to pass the entrance exam for the local Grammar.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/66859121
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/
Do you think that the 10,000 dead Palestinians, including 4,000 dead children, just happen? Do you think that this method of bombing housing blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and UN schools is the only way to find and kill Hamas soldiers? Do you think the statements from Israeli politicians of "killing human animals" or turning Gaza into "a city of tents. There will be no buildings" of individuals and organisations making no distinction between Hamas and Palestinians as a whole do not somehow shed light on why that civilian death toll seems to high?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/18/israel-gaza-hamas-palestinians
Why have deaths on the West Bank increased since Oct 7th, where there is no Hamas? Why are settlers, supported by IDF soldiers, killing more people and taking more land - where there is no Hamas?
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/palestinian-killed-by-israeli-fire-in-west-bank-death-toll-rises-to-154-since-oct-7/3045194#:~:text=Some 2,150 Palestinians detained by,according to Palestinian Prisoner's Society&text=A Palestinian man was killed,7, the Health Ministry said.
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/11/06/settlers-are-causing-mayhem-in-the-west-bank
Could it be because the state of Israel has a stated policy position to have all the land held by Palestinians as part of their state? People decry "from the river to the sea" but Israeli politicians go to the UN using maps that show Israel without any space for Gaza or the West bank and that isn't an issue? That maybe Netanyahu citing a biblical genocide that refers to "[slaying] both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"" could, in fact, be a bit mask off?
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1718360354764238929
You don't even like the Union Jack on your Labour Party membership card. I do, I might even join, as well as vote for them
"Tory members want me to save their party, but I’m afraid it’s too late
Perhaps after the next election, when there are fewer Tory MPs, the chance to realign the centre of British politics will come
Nigel Farage"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/07/tory-members-want-me-to-save-their-party-but-im-afraid-it/
(52 in 97; 58 in 2005)
I'm not really sure what to expect from a Starmer administration.
As a dyed in the wool Unionist I found myself somewhat ambivalent about Kate Forbes who has correctly analysed the problem and diagnosed that what the Scottish government needs to build is a viable economy which is self sustaining. I absolutely agree with her diagnosis but do not wish her outcome. As Yousef has shown no interest in this either (Its Scotland's oil but we intend to leave it in the ground being a particular low point) the Union is safe for the time being. The Scottish economy, sadly, is not.
Perhaps he's noticed that his War on Cars is a fabrication, and read the Susan Hall AM polls?
In any case, Leon, or whatever fckng name he was calling himself then, held that position in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 etc.
I can see the next Parliament turning out like 74-79 but I hope I'm wrong and things become better, quickly.
But I wouldn't be surprised if he's flip-flopped a few times - he does on everything else.
Beyond that who know's?
The best chance for the SNP to rise again and Scottish independence to come back to the table will be when we get the next cycle of Tory government I suppose, but who know's when that will be?
1) Amnesty has a long history of anti-Israel sentiment, and alleged ties to Islamist movements. Some details here; I'm sure you can find more fairly easily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Israel
2) Yes, I think this is (unfortunately) the only way to find and kill Hamas soldiers. You're welcome to suggest alternatives.
3) Citation needed for the civilian death toll "feels too high". What are you comparing it against? What even is there to compare against? Why did Israel bother to evacuate Gaza City if they don't care about casualties? Why are they continuing to keep escape routes open for civilians still left on the wrong side of the Israeli line, and why are Hamas trying to prevent them from doing so?
4) You are flat wrong that Hamas are not on the West Bank. The numbers are fewer, sure, but Israel has arrested at least 850 Hamas operatives on the West Bank in the past month, and there are other terrorist organisation present there who are attempting to use the current situation to start a general uprising.
5) That tweet you've quoted is misleading - Netanyahu quoted Deuteronomy 25 17-18, as follows:
Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt,
how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God.
He did not quote or reference 1 Samuel 15:3.
The moment passed when Forbes was not made leader.
I don't think he has time to do the latter competently - but in rental law changes they never do on that and they *always* make something far worse than it was before.
Proposed pension changes seem interesting, but I didn't hear that in the speech.
Strange focus on "improve most popular rail services"- surely there should be a focus on developing new ones where they don't exist or are inadequate? Existing usage seems a very poor guide to where change is needed.
No one who can't go over a traditional footbridge uses my local mainline railway station because it is a 30 minute journey out and 30 minutes back plus a wait in the middle to change from Platform 1 to Platform 2, so no usage *indicates* a need for change.
It is the bile in their hearts that is the problem, not the governance of the nation.
This is a modern war in a tiny urban space. How did Hamas think it would go once they had done the 7th October acts?
So a culture of "rights" and "entitlements" works to generate an endless sense of grievance, for rights can never be absolute, and entitlements can never be fulfilled.
Sturgeon nearly won. Fortunately, she and her supporters got high on their own supply.
In any event the only threat to Ukrainian freedom from the West is from the neo Fascist wing of the GOP and a return of Trump. Listening to Trump on trial though, I think his health may not survive the next six months.
The land war may be deadlocked for a time, but the latest Naval operation by the ZSU is a gentle reminder that in many ways the tide against Russia is running a little faster. The Putin regime is very fragile, and it would a foolish for Westerners to assume that it survives in the long term.
https://twitter.com/mufaddal_vohra/status/1721900471382847997
Don’t feel quite so bad about England losing to the Afghans now.
A splendid and diverse run, ending with that treasured PB chestnut, Sindy.
What next?
Luckily, she was a better tactician than strategist, and Yousaf is neither
The indy dream is not dead, but it's a long road back from here
Surely shume mistake.
So we have to gamble on Labour taking power and hope that they face up to the big issues once elected, rather than reverting to the Blairite way of short-term ducking and spinning, after four years of which we will simply be deeper in the mire.
She also gave lefties something to cheer about in a decade which hasn’t been particularly kind to the political left. See also Saint Jacinda for another example.
The heart has really gone out of the Aussies here.
Putin looks like he is cemented in power as firmly as ever. The Russian economy is doing OK (considering)*. The war is arguably turning in his favour and quite likely to end in an armistice with him holding on to chunks of Ukraine (ie something he can sell as a "win"). I see no internal threats to him. And the idea he is dying has turned out - like so much around this war- to be wishcasting
*The Russian economy: not great but not a disaster zone:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/imf-russias-war-spending-fuels-short-term-growth-longer-term-outlook-dim-2023-10-13/
Ulez
Night Tube
Ulez-X
Crossrail
All them delivered expertly on his watch.
The entirety of British history woulda changed. It's weird how he screwed up in so many ways - from his perspective
It would literally be better to have Nigel Farage and Ambrose Evans Pritchard sharing the job of Governor of the Bank of England.
This thread has been banned for 14 year olds (but not 15 year olds)
They're pretty much there on local government insolvency...
Bland he may be. Indolent he is not.
Or was too thick to pass the entrance exam for the local Grammar.
Or both of the above.