Let’s party like it is 1979 all over again – politicalbetting.com

System

Let’s party like it is 1979 all over again – politicalbetting.com

“I don’t want another [terrorist] attack on this house”Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle announces there will be an emergency debate on Gaza and apologises for the part he played in the chaos yesterday, but says he was acting with the safety of MPs in mind. pic.twitter.com/G9HVTi8imj

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

I love doing threads on Scotland, constitutional affairs, & betting and I've hit the Holy Trinity here.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

I love doing threads on Scotland, constitutional affairs, & betting and I've hit the Holy Trinity here.

Second to the trinity.

eek

Trinity full house -

Nigelb

Fourthly, Leon will be amused to note that you've verbed an adverb.

"I also expect it will badly for the Tories in Britain."

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

Thirdly, Leon will be amused to note that you've verbed an adverb.

"I also expect it will badly for the Tories in Britain."

Missing word, fixed now.

williamglenn

Nigelb said:

Thirdly, Leon will be amused to note that you've verbed an adverb.

"I also expect it will badly for the Tories in Britain."

They'll get bigly badlied.

148grss

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

Nigelb

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

Alphabet_Soup

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

Thirdly, Leon will be amused to note that you've verbed an adverb.

"I also expect it will badly for the Tories in Britain."

Missing word, fixed now.

I'd assumed it was a Cambridge style lexical innovation.

TheScreamingEagles

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

TheScreamingEagles

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

Michael Foot's contribution in that debate was awesome, he did the winding up of the debate for the government.

Nigelb

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

With Neil Kinnock leading a chorus of The Red Flag.

TheScreamingEagles

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

I did think about putting that observation in the header (followed by the sad observation an MP was murdered the very next day so Parliament knows all about threats for a long time) but decided against it.

Theuniondivvie

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

What sort of dip are you predicting for the EssEnnPee in the next Scotland only poll?

Alphabet_Soup

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

Michael Foot's contribution in that debate was awesome, he did the winding up of the debate for the government.

ISTR he described David Steel going from bright young thing to elder statesman with nothing in between.

148grss

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

Or the SNP are trying to represent the Scottish view on the issue, which is more sympathetic to the Palestinian position compared to the UK as a whole:

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23877366.ell-folan-humza-yousafs-stance-war-tune-scots/

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/sympathies-for-the-israelis-palestinian-conflict

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

MattW

You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.

Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:

I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.

To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.

I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.

They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.

Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?

If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.

Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?

That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979. Giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

Was that who Callaghan's "turkeys voting for Christmas" gag was aimed at ?

TheScreamingEagles

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

What sort of dip are you predicting for the EssEnnPee in the next Scotland only poll?

Depends on how the next few days play out, if it leads to Speaker Rees-Mogg then a bit of a hit.

I feel confident on my private bet on the SNP not winning a majority of Scottish seats at the next election.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

Michael Foot's contribution in that debate was awesome, he did the winding up of the debate for the government.

Meanwhile Lindsay Hoyle seems to have wound up the entire SNP.

TheScreamingEagles

Alphabet_Soup said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

Michael Foot's contribution in that debate was awesome, he did the winding up of the debate for the government.

ISTR he described David Steel going from bright young thing to elder statesman with nothing in between.

He did.

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979. Giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

Was that who Callaghan's "turkeys voting for Christmas" gag was aimed at ?

Yup.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

What sort of dip are you predicting for the EssEnnPee in the next Scotland only poll?

Depends on how the next few days play out, if it leads to Speaker Rees-Mogg then a bit of a hit.

I feel confident on my private bet on the SNP not winning a majority of Scottish seats at the next election.

If they lead to that useless twat being Speaker, then they should all forfeit their seats, be banned from ever standing for elective office again, and ordered to act as a jury in the next Trump fraud case.

david_herdson

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

The vote even more so.

Can you possibly imagine now a Tory Chief Whip offering to commit career suicide to enable a terminally ill Labour MP not to have to turn up (even though the effect would be to keep Labour in power) - and the Labour Chief Whip rejecting the offer? Honourable doesn't even begin to describe their behaviour.

isam

MattW said:

You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.

Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:

I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.

To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.

I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.

They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.

Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?

If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.

Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?

That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.

Currently listening to him being interviewed by Matt Forde

For the first time in 4 months I’ve recorded a new epsiode of The Political Party.

I loved doing it again, even if I felt a bit rusty.

It’s a brilliant chat with @LeeAndersonMP_.
I wish we’d had another hour.


https://x.com/mattforde/status/1759525286096371861?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

TheScreamingEagles

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

Michael Foot's contribution in that debate was awesome, he did the winding up of the debate for the government.

Meanwhile Lindsay Hoyle seems to have wound up the entire SNP.

As Foot went on to entirely wind up Labour's chances for the next decade.

Pulpstar

Why isn't Laing in the running for speaker. Is she retiring ?

Carnyx

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979. Giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

Was that who Callaghan's "turkeys voting for Christmas" gag was aimed at ?

Also PBers forget that Callaghan had just allosed his party to do the dirty over devolution.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/the-staggers/2019/03/did-snp-bring-really-down-callaghan-government-and-pave-way-thatcherism

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

Michael Foot's contribution in that debate was awesome, he did the winding up of the debate for the government.

Meanwhile Lindsay Hoyle seems to have wound up the entire SNP.

Every cloud…

MattW

Nigelb said:

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total.
Another is what will it be fired from.

ydoethur

david_herdson said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

The vote even more so.

Can you possibly imagine now a Tory Chief Whip offering to commit career suicide to enable a terminally ill Labour MP not to have to turn up (even though the effect would be to keep Labour in power) - and the Labour Chief Whip rejecting the offer? Honourable doesn't even begin to describe their behaviour.

They were deputy chief whips.

#pedanticbetting.com

(Your main point still holds good though.)

Alphabet_Soup

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979. Giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

Was that who Callaghan's "turkeys voting for Christmas" gag was aimed at ?

Yup.

Strictly speaking I think he said 'turkeys voting for an early Christmas'.

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

Why isn't Laing in the running for speaker. Is she retiring ?

Currently under investigation for a lockdown breaking party.

Wulfrun_Phil

FPT

Carnyx said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Carnyx said:

david_herdson said:

One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.

Also remarkable that our PB Scots Experts are all assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab, etc. It's a dangerous potential blind spot. Hardy anyone here seems to appreciate that they might honestly consider their motion the right thing to do, whether one agrees with it or not.

The SNP had put forward two opposition day motions, one seeking backing for £28bn annual UK funding for green energy, the other on Gaza.

I have a bit of difficulty with the notion that the fact of the choice of topic and wording of both motions, which in both cases lent itself to causing splits in the Labour ranks, was entirely coincidental to their actual intent.

Causing splits? *Causing*? When Slab, as TUD observed earlier, actually voted to agree, pretty much, with the SNP on the question at issue?

Seriously, it's a bit like saying "I blame the SNP because they made that motion and it rained afterwards". The way SKS has been dealing with the Corbynite and socialist wing of Labour, I think *any* motion that wasn't along the lines of congratulating Mrs McTavish on the successful rescue of her budgie by the Scottish Fire Service would reveal the splits in the Labour ranks on whatever it was about.

"Causing splits", or "exacerbating splits", whatever you wish to call it, I really don't care. (The fact that Starmer had shifted the Labour position to put together an amendment on Gaza that seemed to satisfy opinion across the party suggests to me that "causing splits" is more apt now, but that's continuing off on your tangent to your original claim.)

The point is that both motions were chosen and worded in such a way to cause/exploit/exaggerate* (*delete as you wish) splits in Labour, much as you might deny it. The fact that both shared that characteristic undermines your claim that the Gaza motion was entirely focused on the matter of Gaza and was put forward with no ulterior motive.

And I also note that in order to try and do that on the Gaza motion, your party had to act in concert with the Tories, just as it did in 1979, so it's quite relevant that this has gone over to the new thread.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

The 1979 confidence debate was conducted with gravitas and decorum by MPs worthy of their office. We shall not see their like again.

The vote even more so.

Can you possibly imagine now a Tory Chief Whip offering to commit career suicide to enable a terminally ill Labour MP not to have to turn up (even though the effect would be to keep Labour in power) - and the Labour Chief Whip rejecting the offer? Honourable doesn't even begin to describe their behaviour.

They were deputy chief whips.

#pedanticbetting.com

(Your main point still holds good though.)

Who went on to become a great Speaker.

Carnyx

Wulfrun_Phil said:

FPT

Carnyx said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Carnyx said:

david_herdson said:

One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.

Also remarkable that our PB Scots Experts are all assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab, etc. It's a dangerous potential blind spot. Hardy anyone here seems to appreciate that they might honestly consider their motion the right thing to do, whether one agrees with it or not.

The SNP had put forward two opposition day motions, one seeking backing for £28bn annual UK funding for green energy, the other on Gaza.

I have a bit of difficulty with the notion that the fact of the choice of topic and wording of both motions, which in both cases lent itself to causing splits in the Labour ranks, was entirely coincidental to their actual intent.

Causing splits? *Causing*? When Slab, as TUD observed earlier, actually voted to agree, pretty much, with the SNP on the question at issue?

Seriously, it's a bit like saying "I blame the SNP because they made that motion and it rained afterwards". The way SKS has been dealing with the Corbynite and socialist wing of Labour, I think *any* motion that wasn't along the lines of congratulating Mrs McTavish on the successful rescue of her budgie by the Scottish Fire Service would reveal the splits in the Labour ranks on whatever it was about.

"Causing splits", or "exacerbating splits", whatever you wish to call it, I really don't care. (The fact that Starmer had shifted the Labour position to put together an amendment on Gaza that seemed to satisfy opinion across the party suggests to me that "causing splits" is more apt now, but that's continuing off on your tangent to your original claim.)

The point is that both motions were chosen and worded in such a way to cause/exploit/exaggerate* (*delete as you wish) splits in Labour, much as you might deny it. The fact that both shared that characteristic undermines your claim that the Gaza motion was entirely focused on the matter of Gaza and was put forward with no ulterior motive.

And I also note that in order to try and do that on the Gaza motion, your party had to act in concert with the Tories, just as it did in 1979, so it's quite relevant that this has gone over to the new thread.

You're claiming that it is illegitimate for the SNP ever to have a motion on something which might upset Labour. Even if it is party policy and has been for some time.

Edit: That it might upset Labour is a bonus, sure. But it's not the primary reason for the policy.

Now change the names round to, say, Labour and the Tories for the next party day.

Roger

The editor of Haaretz when asked what Israel would make of the vote in the UK parliament he replied 'they wouldn't notice or care less'

Quite an endorsement for our chilly little theme park

HYUFD

If Hoyle is ousted the Tory candidate for Speaker would almost certainly be Dame Eleanor Laing not Rees Mogg, who will be aiming to hold his seat and get a Shadow Cabinet post under the next leader in Opposition (maybe even then be Conservative leader himself if that leader loses the next general election but one) assuming Sunak loses the next election

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Why isn't Laing in the running for speaker. Is she retiring ?

No she is still very much Epping Forest MP and has made no announcement she will stand down

Theuniondivvie

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Carnyx

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

I wouldn't call them English parties so much as British Unionist - if presently poorly represented in terms of Scottish MPs. But you're right, it is the problem that the Speaker has created a two-grade Parliament yet again (after EVEL was scrapped), and minor details and arguments don't hide that.

It also applies to any party with strong representation in one particular aspect or area of the polity. SNP today, LDs in Devon and Cornwall tomorrow, Reform after the next election, indeed Tories after the next election.

Sandpit

Roger said:

The editor of Haaretz when asked what Israel would make of the vote in the UK parliament he replied 'they wouldn't notice or care less'

Quite an endorsement for our chilly little theme park

Why should they? Sending a letter is not imposing actual penalties such as sanctions or trade restrictions - doubly so when they’re well aware of the actual UK government’s view of the situation.

bondegezou

Off topic... I am looking for data on the current constituency boundaries for a big data project. What I would like is a centroid location as coordinates for each constituency. (Even better, a population-weighted centroid!) If not, data describing the boundary of each constituency. Does anyone know if this is available somewhere? Thanks.

Carnyx

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

algarkirk

Pulpstar said:

Why isn't Laing in the running for speaker. Is she retiring ?

There isn't a vacancy.

Casino_Royale

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

I'm not sure they cared.

They felt Labour betrayed them over the 1979 referendum with the 40% rule, and wanted revenge, and it suited them to build up a grievance over a Tory government to build up to an even more decisive result next time.

Mexicanpete

.

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Why isn't Laing in the running for speaker. Is she retiring ?

No she is still very much Epping Forest MP and has made no announcement she will stand down

Didn't she embark on some Miller Time during COVID and awaits the outcome?

Moggsy is yer man.

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Nigelb

This is a bit longwinded, but it's an excellent exposition of why Biden is by quite some distance the likeliest candidate in November, and why the only realistic alternative is almost certainly Harris.*

Lawrence O'Donnell on what they don’t tell you about the Dump Biden ‘fantasy’
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-on-what-they-don-t-tell-you-about-the-dump-biden-fantasy-204684869613

Anyone betting real money on the nomination really ought to listen to it.

(*The sheer improbability of doing anything else probably explains the Michelle Obama fantasy.)

JosiasJessop

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total.
Another is what will it be fired from.

The first question is an issue.

The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.

Northern_Al

I can't help but think, from the clip in the header, that Stephen Flynn/SNP is/are being rather mean-spirited in his call for the Speaker to go, and in his tone. Whatever one thinks of the debacle, Hoyle has apologised pretty profusely for yesterday, and expressed his desire to find a way forward that would satisfy the SNP and others. Flynn is, I think, being rather ungracious in not accepting the apology and the offer of talks. It's not as if Hoyle has any track record of egregious behaviour towards the SNP.

Anabobazina

Is this self-indulgent pantomime still continuing?

GET ON WITH THE JOB

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

Wulfrun_Phil

Carnyx said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

FPT

Carnyx said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Carnyx said:

david_herdson said:

One aspect of the Hoyle farrago insufficiently discussed is that if he is brought down now, the Tories get to choose his replacement, if they have a degree of unity. If it waits until after the election, it'll almost certainly be a Labour appointment.

Also remarkable that our PB Scots Experts are all assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab, etc. It's a dangerous potential blind spot. Hardy anyone here seems to appreciate that they might honestly consider their motion the right thing to do, whether one agrees with it or not.

The SNP had put forward two opposition day motions, one seeking backing for £28bn annual UK funding for green energy, the other on Gaza.

I have a bit of difficulty with the notion that the fact of the choice of topic and wording of both motions, which in both cases lent itself to causing splits in the Labour ranks, was entirely coincidental to their actual intent.

Causing splits? *Causing*? When Slab, as TUD observed earlier, actually voted to agree, pretty much, with the SNP on the question at issue?

Seriously, it's a bit like saying "I blame the SNP because they made that motion and it rained afterwards". The way SKS has been dealing with the Corbynite and socialist wing of Labour, I think *any* motion that wasn't along the lines of congratulating Mrs McTavish on the successful rescue of her budgie by the Scottish Fire Service would reveal the splits in the Labour ranks on whatever it was about.

"Causing splits", or "exacerbating splits", whatever you wish to call it, I really don't care. (The fact that Starmer had shifted the Labour position to put together an amendment on Gaza that seemed to satisfy opinion across the party suggests to me that "causing splits" is more apt now, but that's continuing off on your tangent to your original claim.)

The point is that both motions were chosen and worded in such a way to cause/exploit/exaggerate* (*delete as you wish) splits in Labour, much as you might deny it. The fact that both shared that characteristic undermines your claim that the Gaza motion was entirely focused on the matter of Gaza and was put forward with no ulterior motive.

And I also note that in order to try and do that on the Gaza motion, your party had to act in concert with the Tories, just as it did in 1979, so it's quite relevant that this has gone over to the new thread.

You're claiming that it is illegitimate for the SNP ever to have a motion on something which might upset Labour. Even if it is party policy and has been for some time.

Edit: That it might upset Labour is a bonus, sure. But it's not the primary reason for the policy.

Now change the names round to, say, Labour and the Tories for the next party day.

No, I am not claiming that it is illegitimate for the SNP ever to have a motion on something which might upset Labour. Another invented claim by me.

What I am continuing to do is to take issue with you when you disparaged those who were "assuming the SNP were posting their motion out of malice against Slab" because that is exactly what the SNP were up to.

MattW

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total.
Another is what will it be fired from.

The first question is an issue.

The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.

Taurus has lots of platforms, but the only F15 is the "Slam Eagle" supplied to S Korea.

On Storm Shadow, iirc we devised a system using wing pillars recycled from Tornados, which were fitted to SU-27s (iirc).

Checking again, Tornado is in the list - so that may mean it fits the same franken-mount.

148grss

https://twitter.com/euanyours/status/1760659499826696545

I for one think it's great that we have our first major party to be led by a Muslim being effectively accused of enabling terrorist attacks through their normal parliamentary actions.

williamglenn

Roger said:

The editor of Haaretz when asked what Israel would make of the vote in the UK parliament he replied 'they wouldn't notice or care less'

Quite an endorsement for our chilly little theme park

People didn't listen to us in the past out of deference, but because of the underlying threat of force.

Carnyx

Northern_Al said:

I can't help but think, from the clip in the header, that Stephen Flynn/SNP is/are being rather mean-spirited in his call for the Speaker to go, and in his tone. Whatever one thinks of the debacle, Hoyle has apologised pretty profusely for yesterday, and expressed his desire to find a way forward that would satisfy the SNP and others. Flynn is, I think, being rather ungracious in not accepting the apology and the offer of talks. It's not as if Hoyle has any track record of egregious behaviour towards the SNP.

They've been done out of their opposition day and haven't been offered it back. Only three in one year, remember. Of course they can't accept the apology. "I stole your pension, Mrs Grady - sorry, here's a wilted flower from the cemetery.'

Track record is irrelevant when you'v e built a whole bloody terminus in one day.

148grss

Northern_Al said:

I can't help but think, from the clip in the header, that Stephen Flynn/SNP is/are being rather mean-spirited in his call for the Speaker to go, and in his tone. Whatever one thinks of the debacle, Hoyle has apologised pretty profusely for yesterday, and expressed his desire to find a way forward that would satisfy the SNP and others. Flynn is, I think, being rather ungracious in not accepting the apology and the offer of talks. It's not as if Hoyle has any track record of egregious behaviour towards the SNP.

I mean, an apology doesn't give them back a clean opposition day motion; nor does it guarantee that privilege for the future.

JosiasJessop

MattW said:

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total.
Another is what will it be fired from.

The first question is an issue.

The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.

Taurus has lots of platforms, but the only F15 is the "Slam Eagle" supplied to S Korea.

On Storm Shadow, iirc we devised a system using wing pillars recycled from Tornados, which were fitted to SU-27s (iirc).

Checking again, Tornado is in the list - so that may mean it fits the same franken-mount.

Yeah, IMV they wouldn't even be talking about it unless they'd already sorted out the launcher issue in theory.

Sandpit

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total.
Another is what will it be fired from.

The first question is an issue.

The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.

It’s quite amazing how much improvisation and dirty integration can be done when there’s an actual war going on, and there isn’t a three year £100m project for the contractors to do it ‘properly’.

Carnyx

148grss said:

Northern_Al said:

I can't help but think, from the clip in the header, that Stephen Flynn/SNP is/are being rather mean-spirited in his call for the Speaker to go, and in his tone. Whatever one thinks of the debacle, Hoyle has apologised pretty profusely for yesterday, and expressed his desire to find a way forward that would satisfy the SNP and others. Flynn is, I think, being rather ungracious in not accepting the apology and the offer of talks. It's not as if Hoyle has any track record of egregious behaviour towards the SNP.

I mean, an apology doesn't give them back a clean opposition day motion; nor does it guarantee that privilege for the future.

That last's the key issue. And partisan posters who don't like the SNP keep missing that.

bondegezou

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

The actual issue on which the Scottish people may (or may not) have been so badly treated matters however. The SNP thought it would gain support by fighting evil London on gender self-identification, but it turned out Scottish voters agreed more with London.

Here, it's a rather abstract issue -- an amendment being called that calls for a ceasefire in slightly different wording. If you have to get into the details of Parliamentary procedure to explain how the Scottish people have been sorely treated, I can't see it being something that will have a lot of impact.

For example, you say, "If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely?" That shows you've misunderstood the issue. The Government always get to suggest an amendment. Also, these opposition motion votes don't do anything. If you actually want an independence referendum, you'd have to do it through a different sort of Parliamentary vote.

david_herdson

Nigelb said:

This is a bit longwinded, but it's an excellent exposition of why Biden is by quite some distance the likeliest candidate in November, and why the only realistic alternative is almost certainly Harris.*

Lawrence O'Donnell on what they don’t tell you about the Dump Biden ‘fantasy’
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-on-what-they-don-t-tell-you-about-the-dump-biden-fantasy-204684869613

Anyone betting real money on the nomination really ought to listen to it.

(*The sheer improbability of doing anything else probably explains the Michelle Obama fantasy.)

Haven't had time to watch it but is the answer: because he's running and no-one else is?

Jim_Miller

This AP article seems clearer than that tweet (Twix?) posted earlier: "BERLIN (AP) — German lawmakers on Thursday called on the government to deliver further long-range weapons to Ukraine, but voted down an opposition call explicitly urging it to send Taurus long-range cruise missiles.

Germany is now the second-biggest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called recently for other European countries to step up with more weapons deliveries."
https://apnews.com/article/germany-ukraine-war-weapons-taurus-parliament-e7474bea641038e240d33d12a73b1d09

Malmesbury

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total.
Another is what will it be fired from.

The first question is an issue.

The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.

It’s quite amazing how much improvisation and dirty integration can be done when there’s an actual war going on, and there isn’t a three year £100m project for the contractors to do it ‘properly’.

and all that...

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Northern_Al

148grss said:

Northern_Al said:

I can't help but think, from the clip in the header, that Stephen Flynn/SNP is/are being rather mean-spirited in his call for the Speaker to go, and in his tone. Whatever one thinks of the debacle, Hoyle has apologised pretty profusely for yesterday, and expressed his desire to find a way forward that would satisfy the SNP and others. Flynn is, I think, being rather ungracious in not accepting the apology and the offer of talks. It's not as if Hoyle has any track record of egregious behaviour towards the SNP.

I mean, an apology doesn't give them back a clean opposition day motion; nor does it guarantee that privilege for the future.

But nor does replacing the Speaker - possibly with somebody who's really not very good.

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

DecrepiterJohnL

48 weeks exactly to the general election on Thursday, 23 January.

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

Wulfrun_Phil

DecrepiterJohnL said:

48 weeks exactly to the general election on Thursday, 23 January.

15 not 14 wasted years then.

viewcode

Someof you may have fond memories of the play "This House" as performed and transmitted by the National Theatre a few years ago. The trailer and clips are on YouTube and the video can be rented from the NT.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJgBmjHpqgs4AvrnkGeeh3-7s61ybSPzp
https://www.ntathome.com/products/this-house

The vignette depicted in the play and discussed by @david_herdson et al downstream occurred when whips Walter Harrison (Labour) and Bernard Weatherill (Cons) discussed pairing: a Labour MP was dying and his absence would have precipitated a Government defeat. Weatherill offered to absent himself, obeying the convention but killing his career. Harrison, impressed, released Weatherill from his obligation, the 1979 confidence vote was held and lost, history proceeded.

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

I'd say you 'ave it almost right - but you'd need to be bilingual to get it.

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

I'd say you 'ave it almost right - but you'd need to be bilingual to get it.

Uamh identified the problem.

Nigelb

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total.
Another is what will it be fired from.

The first question is an issue.

The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.

They're a million a pop, so high value targets only. I would guess they won't want all that many of them.

The other point is that a replacement is in the works (probably to be produced in both S Korea and Germany) which will be also compatible with lighter aircraft like the FA50 S Korea is supplying to Poland.
https://adj.com.my/2024/01/25/taurus-to-develop-cruise-missile-for-kai-fa-50/

So Germany won't be all that reluctant to run down to some extent the old stocks. S Korea might sell a few back, too.

Jim_Miller

Completely off topic, but cheering: A young woman, Lily Baker, saw an older woman trying to cross railroad tracks by pushing her wheelchair. Baker saw a train coming, stopped her car and was able to pull the older woman out of the way of the train, in time to save her life, though she did suffer two broken ankles.
'“I think it’s one of the bravest acts I’ve ever seen,” said [Ardmore, Alabama chief of police Jerome] Robison, who has been a police officer for 20 years. “For an 18-year-old girl who is not big in stature to risk her life to save somebody else, she just showed that bravery comes in all shapes and sizes.”'
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2024/02/22/railroad-rescue-alabama-csx-ardmore/

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

I'd say you 'ave it almost right - but you'd need to be bilingual to get it.

Uamh identified the problem.

As a matter of interest, is it the same orthography in Welsh?

Nigelb

MattW said:

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

Nigelb said:

The German parliament has approved the provision of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine in the end. The relevant resolution was submitted to the vote by the parliamentary coalition, announced Ukrainian MP Yehor Chernev.
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1760677388944650708

One question is that they only made about 900 of them, in total.
Another is what will it be fired from.

The first question is an issue.

The second question is probably (and hopefully...) irrelevant. The Ukrainians have proven rather adept at getting weapons systems 'experts' have said were useless without launch platforms launched.

Taurus has lots of platforms, but the only F15 is the "Slam Eagle" supplied to S Korea.

On Storm Shadow, iirc we devised a system using wing pillars recycled from Tornados, which were fitted to SU-27s (iirc).

Checking again, Tornado is in the list - so that may mean it fits the same franken-mount.

Similar weight (1300 vs 1400kg), too.

Longer range because it's more efficient.

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

I'd say you 'ave it almost right - but you'd need to be bilingual to get it.

Uamh identified the problem.

As a matter of interest, is it the same orthography in Welsh?

It's not crazily far away - the word for cave is ogof (OG ov).

Hard sound rather than soft though. Unusual reversion of the mean.

Theuniondivvie

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Tories postively salivating over how association with them indelibly taints anyone upon whom they lay their poop covered hands, quite startling when you think about it.

Wulfrun_Phil

148grss said:

Northern_Al said:

I can't help but think, from the clip in the header, that Stephen Flynn/SNP is/are being rather mean-spirited in his call for the Speaker to go, and in his tone. Whatever one thinks of the debacle, Hoyle has apologised pretty profusely for yesterday, and expressed his desire to find a way forward that would satisfy the SNP and others. Flynn is, I think, being rather ungracious in not accepting the apology and the offer of talks. It's not as if Hoyle has any track record of egregious behaviour towards the SNP.

I mean, an apology doesn't give them back a clean opposition day motion; nor does it guarantee that privilege for the future.

They are though getting a new emergency debate on Gaza. That doesn't satisfy them because their purpose yesterday had little to do with Gaza.

Carnyx

bondegezou said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

The actual issue on which the Scottish people may (or may not) have been so badly treated matters however. The SNP thought it would gain support by fighting evil London on gender self-identification, but it turned out Scottish voters agreed more with London.

Here, it's a rather abstract issue -- an amendment being called that calls for a ceasefire in slightly different wording. If you have to get into the details of Parliamentary procedure to explain how the Scottish people have been sorely treated, I can't see it being something that will have a lot of impact.

For example, you say, "If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely?" That shows you've misunderstood the issue. The Government always get to suggest an amendment. Also, these opposition motion votes don't do anything. If you actually want an independence referendum, you'd have to do it through a different sort of Parliamentary vote.

Hang on, that can't be right. Opposition motions do have effects. That one about extracting Brexit impact asessments from HMG in 2017, for instance.

Edit: but who knows now the ref is nobbled?

Mexicanpete

..

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?

Nigelb

david_herdson said:

Nigelb said:

This is a bit longwinded, but it's an excellent exposition of why Biden is by quite some distance the likeliest candidate in November, and why the only realistic alternative is almost certainly Harris.*

Lawrence O'Donnell on what they don’t tell you about the Dump Biden ‘fantasy’
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-on-what-they-don-t-tell-you-about-the-dump-biden-fantasy-204684869613

Anyone betting real money on the nomination really ought to listen to it.

(*The sheer improbability of doing anything else probably explains the Michelle Obama fantasy.)

Haven't had time to watch it but is the answer: because he's running and no-one else is?

1) Show me the money.

2) How would you otherwise avoid a contested convention (which would likely be a huge mess) ?

Or vice versa.

Sunil_Prasannan

Sandpit said:

Roger said:

The editor of Haaretz when asked what Israel would make of the vote in the UK parliament he replied 'they wouldn't notice or care less'

Quite an endorsement for our chilly little theme park

Why should they? Sending a letter is not imposing actual penalties such as sanctions or trade restrictions - doubly so when they’re well aware of the actual UK government’s view of the situation.

Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind.
Kim Jong Il: Hans, you're breakin' my barrs here, Hans, you're breakin' my barrs!
Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

ydoethur

Mexicanpete said:

..

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?

Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.

Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.

Malmesbury

a

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sandpit said:

Roger said:

The editor of Haaretz when asked what Israel would make of the vote in the UK parliament he replied 'they wouldn't notice or care less'

Quite an endorsement for our chilly little theme park

Why should they? Sending a letter is not imposing actual penalties such as sanctions or trade restrictions - doubly so when they’re well aware of the actual UK government’s view of the situation.

Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind.
Kim Jong Il: Hans, you're breakin' my barrs here, Hans, you're breakin' my barrs!
Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

Now I have to post this link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEaKX9YYHiQ

148grss

bondegezou said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

The actual issue on which the Scottish people may (or may not) have been so badly treated matters however. The SNP thought it would gain support by fighting evil London on gender self-identification, but it turned out Scottish voters agreed more with London.

Here, it's a rather abstract issue -- an amendment being called that calls for a ceasefire in slightly different wording. If you have to get into the details of Parliamentary procedure to explain how the Scottish people have been sorely treated, I can't see it being something that will have a lot of impact.

For example, you say, "If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely?" That shows you've misunderstood the issue. The Government always get to suggest an amendment. Also, these opposition motion votes don't do anything. If you actually want an independence referendum, you'd have to do it through a different sort of Parliamentary vote.

If the SNP are just playing politics - that is also their prerogative! Labour and Tories use House procedure to play politics all the time - the SNP aren’t allowed to? If voting on the motion as written by the SNP was politically difficult for SKS and his party - that’s on him. It’s not down to the Speaker to help make life easier for the LOTO.

williamglenn

Mexicanpete said:

..

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?

Their FAQ says that if you haven't approached a toll plaza then you haven't used the toll road so there's nothing to pay.

https://www.m6toll.co.uk/using-the-m6toll/faqs/

david_herdson

Nigelb said:

david_herdson said:

Nigelb said:

This is a bit longwinded, but it's an excellent exposition of why Biden is by quite some distance the likeliest candidate in November, and why the only realistic alternative is almost certainly Harris.*

Lawrence O'Donnell on what they don’t tell you about the Dump Biden ‘fantasy’
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-on-what-they-don-t-tell-you-about-the-dump-biden-fantasy-204684869613

Anyone betting real money on the nomination really ought to listen to it.

(*The sheer improbability of doing anything else probably explains the Michelle Obama fantasy.)

Haven't had time to watch it but is the answer: because he's running and no-one else is?

1) Show me the money.

2) How would you otherwise avoid a contested convention (which would likely be a huge mess) ?

Or vice versa.

Disagree on (2). Dumping Biden would be a much bigger mess (now) than a contested convention.

However, the key point is that a contested convention would only be contested among Biden's own delegates. It's not a gathering of the great and good of the Democratic Party (well, it is that too, but it's a lot more). With no-one else on the ballots, then unless Biden drops out *very* soon - within a month - then he'll have a majority of delegates. They won't be independent actors.

WillG

MattW said:

You sod @TSE - you're making me catchup with what happened yesterday.

Off-topic, from Mr Anderson's pinned Facebook post in late Jan:

I have had a few people saying they might vote Reform at the next election due to their stance on illegal migration.

To be clear no other MP has been as vocal on this subject as me.

I have had 20,000 surveys returned with constituents voter intentions. These are Ashfield people.

They have me 1st (just) Labour 2nd, Independents 3rd and Reform 4th and losing their deposit.

Watch the upcoming by elections where Reform will lose their deposits. They should be winning these elections as UKIP did 10 years ago. Voting Reform in Ashfield risks getting a Labour MP. Will a Labour MP stick up for Ashfield like I have?

If I lose voters to Reform it won't be Reform that gets elected , it will be Labour or even worse the Independents.

Ask yourself this - who will stand up for you and be your voice in Labour or the Independents get into power in Ashfield?

That sounds about right to me. I think Z has holed himself below the waterline a little too much. But Ashfield may be quite random.

The Tories, with their new income thresholds, have just put the UK under our most stringent rules in history. Those new rules will come into force in April. It is brainless to vote Reform over immigration.

Nigelb

This was a brilliant piece of exposition from Liz Truss's CPAC speech.

At least I thought so, until I realised she wasn't talking about Tory MPs, and their core vote.

“There’s a whole bunch of people – and I describe them as the economic establishment – who fundamentally don’t want the status quo to change because they’re doing quite fine out of it. They don’t really care about the prospects of the average person in Britain and they didn’t want things to change and they didn’t want that power taken away.”

148grss

Wulfrun_Phil said:

148grss said:

Northern_Al said:

I can't help but think, from the clip in the header, that Stephen Flynn/SNP is/are being rather mean-spirited in his call for the Speaker to go, and in his tone. Whatever one thinks of the debacle, Hoyle has apologised pretty profusely for yesterday, and expressed his desire to find a way forward that would satisfy the SNP and others. Flynn is, I think, being rather ungracious in not accepting the apology and the offer of talks. It's not as if Hoyle has any track record of egregious behaviour towards the SNP.

I mean, an apology doesn't give them back a clean opposition day motion; nor does it guarantee that privilege for the future.

They are though getting a new emergency debate on Gaza. That doesn't satisfy them because their purpose yesterday had little to do with Gaza.

Again - even if it had nothing to do with Gaza; it is the SNPs prerogative to play politics with their opposition day motions if they want, and other parties do it all the time. If they’re only annoyed because the Speaker stopped them being politically effective at making Labour look bad, that’s just as bad a thing for the Speaker to be doing. It is not his job to take politically difficult issues off the table to help a specific party keep party cohesion.

Mexicanpete

ydoethur said:

Mexicanpete said:

..

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?

Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.

Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.

Thanks, much appreciated.

He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.

ydoethur

Mexicanpete said:

ydoethur said:

Mexicanpete said:

..

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

148grss said:

I disagree.

The SNP argument to voters will be: The SNP privileges as an opposition party taken were away to save SKS from a difficult decision. Scottish voters are, once again, secondary in the Westminster system in the face of two majority English parties - the Conservatives and Labour. If this can be done now, it can be done again - what if the SNP brought a motion for an independence referendum and Labour or Tories decided to amend it completely? The SNP will always be a minority party in Westminster, because England is that much bigger, so only has opposition privileges to use - that privilege was taken away.

That's a strong argument to leave the Westminster system from the pov of a ScotNat, and maybe even a few on the fencers as well.

To err is human, to forgive is divine, that should be the SNP approach.

But they helped usher in 18 years of Tory government in 1979, giving us a decade of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Speaker may also be similarly sub-optimal for them.

The reality is that voters care about the cost of living, the NHS etc, the SNP focussing on Gaza may not lead to an electoral reward.

You do realise tha Jim Callaghan, no friend to the SNP, himself exonerated them IIRC? Labour was on the way out. But appearance isn't always fair.

Also, the party was very different then. The Tartan Tory thing isn't so credible now - especially with SKS moving more and m ore to the right.

Yes but the SNP did take a hit at the ballot box. Exonerations do not win bets.

Indeed - Callaghan only allowed that to come oujt years later.

1979 is a shibboleth for Yoons, a low wattage zinger (with much competition) in their North British political insight armoury; for anyone in Scotland under 55, not so much. I’d imagine the more recent occasion of a party working hand in glove with the Tories in a Scottish context looms larger in their memory, never mind the several current SLab-SCon council arrangements.

Yes, it's applied with as much enthusiasm and as little self-awareness (on the Tory part) as the accusation of the SNP being Jacobite rebels.

Are you suggesting the historical parallel is a bit Pans?

Yep. Preston too far.

I was trying to continue this string of Jacobite puns, but couldn't come up with any Moor.

I suppose I deserve a Whigging.

Not Glad to hear it - you are usually so much better - but we all have our off-days and I'm sure you will Cope.

The problem with Jacobite puns, is Skye's the limit.

Sorry to bother you @ydoethur, I need to pick your brains. My son has just phoned me from an Aldi parallel to the M6 near Cannock. He took a wrong turn and drove down a rogue dual carriageway with cost signboards for the M6 toll. He is worried he entered the toll road and will be required to pay electronically. My recollection of the M6 toll (which I have always avoided at all costs) is payment via a plaza system and not ticketing via ANPR. So if you don't pass the plaza you don't need to pay. Am I correct?

Yes. You can also *only* pay by tapping your card. He's OK. Apart from being on the M6 at rush hour, of course.

Edit - they put those signs up all over the bloody place. I would guess he's actually at Aldi in Cannock having taken the A460, which runs parallel to the Toll but isn't part of it.

Thanks, much appreciated.

He has described his location to me exactly as you just have. He's on his way to Ashbourne. He'll be greatly relieved as he is as mean as I am.

If he's anywhere near Cannock, he can't have gone on the toll road *anyway* as the first exit is Burntwood, near Lichfield.

Safe travels to him. Warn him from me the roads round here at the moment are awful due to heavy flooding.

Edit - also warn him there are major roadworks in Cannock town centre, and if he is at Cannock's Aldi he'd be better off avoiding them by going back to the railway bridge and taking the first on the left for Rugeley.