Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Alex Salmond has died – politicalbetting.com

24

Comments

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take

    Yep, I hope it was quick to the extent he had no idea what was happening.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082
    Nigelb said:

    You've got to laugh.

    Eton among elite private schools set to cash in on windfall from new VAT rules
    VAT-registered schools will be able to claim refunds for tax paid on capital projects over past 10 years
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/12/eton-among-elite-private-schools-set-to-cash-in-on-windfall-from-new-vat-rules

    Eton made a profit on digging the Olympic rowing lake. Good luck with trying to out smart their bursars….
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    nico679 said:

    Not sure if it’s been posted yet but two new polls out from NY Times/Siena .

    Good news for Harris and Trump .

    Harris leads 50 to 47 in Pennsylvania

    Trump leads 51 to 46 in Arizona

    Probably most pleasing to Harris as she can win without Arizona but probably not without Pennsylvania
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,733
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

    I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

    I can't keep up with the looney left.
    I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

    Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

    I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


    "Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

    “He is a politician who has no political talent.""

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/
    Hmmm but the far left, and often the Tory right too, are usually those who are Starmer's best friends because by and large their criticisms aren't based on that and underperforming on his own terms, but their own mad preoccupations that end up making him look better by comparison.

    Like when he was struggling a bit as LotO and looking to change the party, the Corbynites helped him quite a lot by screaming blue murder about everything so were largely ignored even when had a semblance of a point.

    Some of the madder stuff on the right may do the same.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    dixiedean said:

    69 isn't particularly young, is it?

    Any death under 75 is considered early now, I would think. Progress.
    69 is bloody young. And for all his excess weight and love of a drink Salmond wasn’t exactly a wheezing geriatric struggling to make it to the shops, or a wobbling obesity stat. He was energetic, fully comps mentis, the sort who would bound along the corridors at high speed. I heard him on any questions recently - very much prime of life.

    Events like these make you face your own mortality just that little bit more seriously.

    Buy a smartwatch
    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

    And when Orban is in the Chair.
    Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

    You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.
    We should have then, and we should do now. Schengen is awesome. Makes travelling in Europe a dream (the Swiss like to cosplay Non Schengen as do the French when it suits them, but essentially the borders are open).
  • David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.
    Many African Americans see themselves being pushed to the back of the queue by recent immigrants. They see the Democratic Party increasingly interested in Hispanic groups, and as taking the African American vote for granted.

    Harris’s history as a hard charging DA, especially after BLM, isn’t doing her many favours there, either.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864

    David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

    Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart when he held the EU referendum
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take
    He married a much older woman than him (who ironically survives him) so it was likely never on the cards even then. It didn't seem to bother him too much, every Pope of course dies without issue
    New definition of the word 'every'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Popes_who_were_legally_married
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928

    Undeniably a canny politician and much smarter than most we see nowadays. Becoming an SNP First minister and getting 45% in the independence referendum were historic achievements. The latter might not seem like it until you remember that historic polling would not have predicted they would get near that. The casual attitude of unionists to the result and subsequent events remains disappointing.

    Salmond was like Stage One of the independence rocket. He blasted them up out of the UKs atmosphere (or so it seemed). A massive achievement. Problem was Stage Two failed to ignite (la Sturgeon) and they drifted back down to earth. They splashed down with Humza and Swinney is busy in the lifeboat.
    But they do still have a vision for independence. With Labour in power in Westminster and possibly soon Hollyrood, the SNP can rebuild themselves in opposition focusing on a young and dissatisfied electorate. And we know the establishment won't take it seriously until the threat of referendum comes around again.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,082

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

    They are not voting for Trump as much as they are voting to Break The System.

    Which is why their image of The Leader vs the real Trump are so disparate.

    Read the history of Boulanger. It’s all been done before….
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,805
    HYUFD said:

    David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

    Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart Screwed the country over royally when he held the EU referendum...
    ...then ran away from the chaos he'd created.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,792
    edited October 12
    kamski said:

    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    What is suggests to me is that Germany has watered down Schengen. I can see why the professor is annoyed - it looks a bit slippery slopeish and not done. But a de facto suspension sounds like hyperbole to me.

    The big thing with Schengen is the ability just to walk, cycle or drive over the border with nothing but a “welcome to country x” sign. I love it - one of the joys of European travel. Especially wonderful on the high Alpine passes, or on the Riviera where one second you’re in France, then it’s Monaco then mamma Mia you’re in Italy.

    Switzerland, while a member, does rather spoil the effect by having erected lots of customs infrastructure and waving you over into a lane for inspection if they think you’re carrying contraband, or haven’t got your motorway tag for the year.
    Yes - it feels more like an evolution of schengen rather than its destruction. The reintroduction of border controls has been going on since pre covid years.
    Yes there have been so-called reintroductions of border controls between loads of Schengen countries going on for decades already. Leon only heard about it the other day so think it's something world-shatteringly new, and he also confuses Schengen repeatedly with Freedom of Movement, which is an entirely different thing.



    France “suspends” Schengen on a regular basis whenever she feels like it. She did so for the Olympics and in theory might still be doing so. In reality, you just drive through while throwing an ironic bird to the ‘border guard’ who is more interested in his lunch.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

    Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,811

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

    I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

    I can't keep up with the looney left.
    I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

    Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

    I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


    "Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

    “He is a politician who has no political talent.""

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/
    Yet somehow he won the lab leadership, turned the party around and won a landslide.
    He got extremely lucky: he was the last man standing with Corbyn, the Tories imploded, Covid and Ukraine speeded them on, and so on

    What Starmer is good at is being a stroppy opposition player, he is competitive, and he was needling and persistent in the Commons. He probably accelerated the Tories' demise, to a modest extent

    But the landslide is built on sand. 33.7% on a 60% turnout. Against one of the most unpopular governments in many decades. That shows how poor he is, in reality, and he's not going to get better
    Indeed, there have been 5 A+ politicians in UK politics this century, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and yes also Alex Salmond. Starmer is not one of them, nor are Jenrick or Badenoch
    Boris is not an “A+ politician”.
    While one cannot deny his charisma, he really barely rates on any ordinary political dimension. Though oftent touted for his campaigning, he doesn’t actually even do that. He’s essentially a television personality.

    Your list omits Brown, Sturgeon, and perhaps Drake, perhaps Gove, perhaps Osborn.
    Boris changed the political weather. Brexit is the proof - the referendum would not have been won without him. ( I think his Levelling Up agenda could have been almost as significant if not for Covid intervening).
    In that sense he is definitely an A plus pol. Likewise Thatcher and Salmond. Maybe Farage.
    Most others are just buffeted by the political tides and electoral cycles. At best they triangulate.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,585
    MJW said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

    I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

    I can't keep up with the looney left.
    They do hate P&O, they don't like Starmer cosying up to them.
    In related news, they are back on board with the £1bn investment.
    Because it’s not an investment beyond it keeps us in a position to compete efficiently with the other UK ports.
  • Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take
    I think you have commented in the past (or maybe that was Seant) about the age difference between him and his wife.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,379
    I've just heard about Salmond: RIP. I'm not a Scottish Nationalist so there are limits to what I can say, but even I must concede he was a major and consequential figure that will not be easily replaced. Sixty-nine is a young age to die these days.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    dixiedean said:

    69 isn't particularly young, is it?

    Any death under 75 is considered early now, I would think. Progress.
    69 is bloody young. And for all his excess weight and love of a drink Salmond wasn’t exactly a wheezing geriatric struggling to make it to the shops, or a wobbling obesity stat. He was energetic, fully comps mentis, the sort who would bound along the corridors at high speed. I heard him on any questions recently - very much prime of life.

    Events like these make you face your own mortality just that little bit more seriously.

    It is surprising how many people fall at around age 70, I have a relative close to death at this age, after a brief infectious disease which he just couldn't recover from. One month going away for weeks at the time in the woods and going out on his motorbike, the next month unconscious and being moved to hospice care. An ex colleagues wife, also seemingly active, is a similar age and has been told she may not make it to her next birthday due to inoperable heart failure.

    It is worth reflecting on the retirement age being 68 when instances like this are considered.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    edited October 12

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take
    He married a much older woman than him (who ironically survives him) so it was likely never on the cards even then. It didn't seem to bother him too much, every Pope of course dies without issue
    New definition of the word 'every'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Popes_who_were_legally_married
    A lot of allegedlys there and none of them post 1850
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,213
    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

    And when Orban is in the Chair.
    Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

    You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.
    How would they count our three months? Or, are you suggested they'd let us have unlimited time - and live fully in another country - so long as we didn't work or claim benefits? Not sure that's allowed.

    Is there a Schengen state without FoM?
    Yes, Switzerland. Which has very restrictive immigration laws.

    And, I presume, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    MJW said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

    I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

    I can't keep up with the looney left.
    I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

    Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

    I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


    "Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

    “He is a politician who has no political talent.""

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/
    Hmmm but the far left, and often the Tory right too, are usually those who are Starmer's best friends because by and large their criticisms aren't based on that and underperforming on his own terms, but their own mad preoccupations that end up making him look better by comparison.

    Like when he was struggling a bit as LotO and looking to change the party, the Corbynites helped him quite a lot by screaming blue murder about everything so were largely ignored even when had a semblance of a point.

    Some of the madder stuff on the right may do the same.
    No
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012
    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    dixiedean said:

    69 isn't particularly young, is it?

    Any death under 75 is considered early now, I would think. Progress.
    69 is bloody young. And for all his excess weight and love of a drink Salmond wasn’t exactly a wheezing geriatric struggling to make it to the shops, or a wobbling obesity stat. He was energetic, fully comps mentis, the sort who would bound along the corridors at high speed. I heard him on any questions recently - very much prime of life.

    Events like these make you face your own mortality just that little bit more seriously.

    It is surprising how many people fall at around age 70, I have a relative close to death at this age, after a brief infectious disease which he just couldn't recover from. One month going away for weeks at the time in the woods and going out on his motorbike, the next month unconscious and being moved to hospice care. An ex colleagues wife, also seemingly active, is a similar age and has been told she may not make it to her next birthday due to inoperable heart failure.

    It is worth reflecting on the retirement age being 68 when instances like this are considered.
    Neither of my parents got past 68. As I get deeper into my 60s myself it’s a thought.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,376
    RIP Alex Salmond.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,123
    Leon said:

    MJW said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

    I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

    I can't keep up with the looney left.
    I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

    Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

    I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


    "Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

    “He is a politician who has no political talent.""

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/
    Hmmm but the far left, and often the Tory right too, are usually those who are Starmer's best friends because by and large their criticisms aren't based on that and underperforming on his own terms, but their own mad preoccupations that end up making him look better by comparison.

    Like when he was struggling a bit as LotO and looking to change the party, the Corbynites helped him quite a lot by screaming blue murder about everything so were largely ignored even when had a semblance of a point.

    Some of the madder stuff on the right may do the same.
    No
    Yes
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,402

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

    I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

    I can't keep up with the looney left.
    I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

    Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

    I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


    "Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

    “He is a politician who has no political talent.""

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/
    Yet somehow he won the lab leadership, turned the party around and won a landslide.
    Everything, even those things, is explicable if you remember Starmer is a lawyer first and foremost and a politician hardly at all. Starmer turned the party round and won a landslide because he understood and exploited the rules, which is what lawyers do, just as he did when taking down Boris and bagging himself free glasses.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    Cicero said:

    Leon said:

    MJW said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

    I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

    I can't keep up with the looney left.
    I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

    Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

    I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


    "Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

    “He is a politician who has no political talent.""

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/
    Hmmm but the far left, and often the Tory right too, are usually those who are Starmer's best friends because by and large their criticisms aren't based on that and underperforming on his own terms, but their own mad preoccupations that end up making him look better by comparison.

    Like when he was struggling a bit as LotO and looking to change the party, the Corbynites helped him quite a lot by screaming blue murder about everything so were largely ignored even when had a semblance of a point.

    Some of the madder stuff on the right may do the same.
    No
    Yes
    Maybe.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,835
    edited October 12
    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

    And when Orban is in the Chair.
    Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

    You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.
    How would they count our three months? Or, are you suggested they'd let us have unlimited time - and live fully in another country - so long as we didn't work or claim benefits? Not sure that's allowed.

    Is there a Schengen state without FoM?
    Yes, Switzerland. Which has very restrictive immigration laws.

    And, I presume, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein
    Switzerland has FoM, despite not being in the EU. Pre-brexit you had the right to live and work there.

    San Marino isn't in Schengen, but doesn't have border controls. You can ask for a stamp if you pay.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,885

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

    Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?
    I thought both Jenrick and Badenoch were supportive of Trump, though I'm not sure I can give a link to a specific statement.

    And hasn't BJ said so in between his fluffs? And Liz Truss certainly did.

    Plus obviously Farage.

    I have not seen anything from Lee Anderson.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    dixiedean said:

    69 isn't particularly young, is it?

    Any death under 75 is considered early now, I would think. Progress.
    69 is bloody young. And for all his excess weight and love of a drink Salmond wasn’t exactly a wheezing geriatric struggling to make it to the shops, or a wobbling obesity stat. He was energetic, fully comps mentis, the sort who would bound along the corridors at high speed. I heard him on any questions recently - very much prime of life.

    Events like these make you face your own mortality just that little bit more seriously.

    It is surprising how many people fall at around age 70, I have a relative close to death at this age, after a brief infectious disease which he just couldn't recover from. One month going away for weeks at the time in the woods and going out on his motorbike, the next month unconscious and being moved to hospice care. An ex colleagues wife, also seemingly active, is a similar age and has been told she may not make it to her next birthday due to inoperable heart failure.

    It is worth reflecting on the retirement age being 68 when instances like this are considered.
    Neither of my parents got past 68. As I get deeper into my 60s myself it’s a thought.
    Neither of my parents made it much past 60 (and many uncles/aunts were gone before that).

    If does begin to weigh on the mind when you consider pension, early retirement, etc.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,402
    HYUFD said:

    David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

    Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart when he held the EU referendum
    David Cameron did not so much win a majority in 2015, as happen to be in the vicinity when the SNP wiped out Labour so a majority landed in his lap.
  • NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 733

    HYUFD said:

    David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

    Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart when he held the EU referendum
    David Cameron did not so much win a majority in 2015, as happen to be in the vicinity when the SNP wiped out Labour so a majority landed in his lap.
    That’s a non-sequitur, surely?
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    DavidL said:

    Salmond is a huge loss to Scottish politics. Deeply flawed but clever, witty and persuasive.

    Sturgeon will be relieved his action against the Scottish government is unlikely to go further. Those who gave evidence in his trial will be likewise.

    It will take a long time for this to shake down. Can Alva survive without him? I sincerely doubt it. What are those who support independence but are disgusted by the corruption, cynicism and weird obsessions of the current SNP leadership going to do now?

    So far Wings is silent. He and his ilk, which includes @malcolmg , must be devastated tonight. My condolences to them and his family.

    On the other hand - Alba might find new life outside of his shadow. It might finally become the new SNP that he clearly felt was needed.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 2,000
    On topic, does his current Court of Session petition alleging misfeasance by civil servants now fall by the wayside? Several of Sturgeon’s acolytes in the Scottish Civil Service would heave a sigh of relief.
  • NeilVW said:

    HYUFD said:

    David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

    Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart when he held the EU referendum
    David Cameron did not so much win a majority in 2015, as happen to be in the vicinity when the SNP wiped out Labour so a majority landed in his lap.
    That’s a non-sequitur, surely?
    Yup.

    Even if Labour won every seat in Scotland in 2015 then Dave would have still won a majority.
  • The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5
  • Boris Johnson: Where did Tories go wrong? Thinking they didn’t need me

    The former PM tells our chief political commentator Tim Shipman what he thinks about Brexit, Donald Trump — and the comeback rumours that just won’t go away


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-interview-tim-shipman-wgg6kh66b
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,712
    Nigelb said:

    You've got to laugh.

    Eton among elite private schools set to cash in on windfall from new VAT rules
    VAT-registered schools will be able to claim refunds for tax paid on capital projects over past 10 years
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/12/eton-among-elite-private-schools-set-to-cash-in-on-windfall-from-new-vat-rules

    Called it...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,496
    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    dixiedean said:

    69 isn't particularly young, is it?

    Any death under 75 is considered early now, I would think. Progress.
    69 is bloody young. And for all his excess weight and love of a drink Salmond wasn’t exactly a wheezing geriatric struggling to make it to the shops, or a wobbling obesity stat. He was energetic, fully comps mentis, the sort who would bound along the corridors at high speed. I heard him on any questions recently - very much prime of life.

    Events like these make you face your own mortality just that little bit more seriously.

    It is surprising how many people fall at around age 70, I have a relative close to death at this age, after a brief infectious disease which he just couldn't recover from. One month going away for weeks at the time in the woods and going out on his motorbike, the next month unconscious and being moved to hospice care. An ex colleagues wife, also seemingly active, is a similar age and has been told she may not make it to her next birthday due to inoperable heart failure.

    It is worth reflecting on the retirement age being 68 when instances like this are considered.
    Carpe Diem, and, indeed, Carpe Noctem

    It is this which largely drives me on to further travels - plus, it's my job and I'm good at it. Who knows if I might fall off my perch any moment. I want to see ALL of the world. Do EVERYTHING, maybe twice
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,123
    ohnotnow said:

    DavidL said:

    Salmond is a huge loss to Scottish politics. Deeply flawed but clever, witty and persuasive.

    Sturgeon will be relieved his action against the Scottish government is unlikely to go further. Those who gave evidence in his trial will be likewise.

    It will take a long time for this to shake down. Can Alva survive without him? I sincerely doubt it. What are those who support independence but are disgusted by the corruption, cynicism and weird obsessions of the current SNP leadership going to do now?

    So far Wings is silent. He and his ilk, which includes @malcolmg , must be devastated tonight. My condolences to them and his family.

    On the other hand - Alba might find new life outside of his shadow. It might finally become the new SNP that he clearly felt was needed.
    Genuinely I doubt it. I knew him a little and was at the same uni as his brother,l. He was a one-of-a-kind and it was truly a singular moment in Scottish politics. Independence is gone for this generation and maybe for ever.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,932

    HYUFD said:

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    78% of Blacks still voting for Harris but less than the 90% who voted for Biden in 2020.

    She needs to make use of the Obamas heavily in the final few weeks as Obama won 95% of the Black vote in 2008 and 93% of the Black vote in 2012. At the moment the only gains Harris has made relative to Biden in 2020 is amongst white college graduates. Yet while that will benefit her in a few swing states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania with lots of graduates it is not enough for her to win overall without Black voters turning out for her, especially as Trump has a big lead with white working class voters and has made inroads with Latinos
    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/us/politics/poll-black-voters-harris-trump.html
    That really weird (racist) grammar that capitalises Black but deliberately lower cases white. It's a style guide used throughout much of media.
    I don't think @HYUFD can ever be accused of racism. Why not jump to the obvious conclusion that it is a typo inconsistency, particularly as either capital or not would be acceptable.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,835
    edited October 12
    Cicero said:

    ohnotnow said:

    DavidL said:

    Salmond is a huge loss to Scottish politics. Deeply flawed but clever, witty and persuasive.

    Sturgeon will be relieved his action against the Scottish government is unlikely to go further. Those who gave evidence in his trial will be likewise.

    It will take a long time for this to shake down. Can Alva survive without him? I sincerely doubt it. What are those who support independence but are disgusted by the corruption, cynicism and weird obsessions of the current SNP leadership going to do now?

    So far Wings is silent. He and his ilk, which includes @malcolmg , must be devastated tonight. My condolences to them and his family.

    On the other hand - Alba might find new life outside of his shadow. It might finally become the new SNP that he clearly felt was needed.
    Genuinely I doubt it. I knew him a little and was at the same uni as his brother,l. He was a one-of-a-kind and it was truly a singular moment in Scottish politics. Independence is gone for this generation and maybe for ever.
    Sturgeon was pretty talented too, no?

    I thought the independence cause was very lucky to have them in sucession.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    edited October 12

    HYUFD said:

    David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

    Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart when he held the EU referendum
    David Cameron did not so much win a majority in 2015, as happen to be in the vicinity when the SNP wiped out Labour so a majority landed in his lap.
    He still got 3% more than Starmer did in July when he won in 2015 and of course Reform were a huge thorn in the Tories side this year as the SNP were for Labour then
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012
    edited October 12

    HYUFD said:

    David Cameron A+? What at? Being posh..😏🥴

    Took the Tories back into government and was re elected with a clear majority in 2015, reduced the deficit, grew the economy and defeated the 2014 independence vote even if it fell apart when he held the EU referendum
    David Cameron did not so much win a majority in 2015, as happen to be in the vicinity when the SNP wiped out Labour so a majority landed in his lap.
    sarissa said:

    On topic, does his current Court of Session petition alleging misfeasance by civil servants now fall by the wayside? Several of Sturgeon’s acolytes in the Scottish Civil Service would heave a sigh of relief.

    In theory it could be pursued by his executors but without his evidence and knowledge that seems unlikely to me.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437
    edited October 12
    HYUFD said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    Certainly not the Russians even if there was anything suspicious, he was a regular presenter on Russia Today
    You may have missed how many Russians - once 'allies' of Putin himself - have had literal defenestrations.

    We are at war with Russia. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

    Leaving aside anything Salmond might or might not have known: the independence debate over Scotland is fairly quiescent at the moment. Salmond dying might be a good way of reigniting that debate.

    Putin wants discord.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,173
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't think Corbynites are warming to Starmer. Watching the news with a Corbynite relative and at the P&O story they said Starmer needs shooting (something they are fond of saying about Tories) and his dad should have worn a condom.

    I would have thought Corbynites would hate P&O and what it did to workers.

    I can't keep up with the looney left.
    I don't think this is evidence of lefty lunacy

    Starmer is, simply, intensely easy to dislike. He has that kind of personality. Zero charm or humour, an excess of self regard, vanity, and entitlement, and he hates being criticised. He can barely handle it. This will doom him

    I read this about him from Rosie Duffield in the Telegraph, and thought Yep


    "Although, over the years, Starmer often claimed to be having conversations with her, this was simply not the case. She finally begged for a meeting just before the election. In the end she got 20 minutes with him. “It was utterly pointless,” she says. “He just looks like he does on television, utterly bewildered by being challenged, and affronted as well. He is astonished that anyone dares to question him. Friends in the legal profession will say to me, that’s his barrister head, because if you question a barrister, they believe you’re questioning their knowledge of the law and their absolute expertise on their subject. I was questioning him about the two-child benefit cap, and how it looked, and he just seemed baffled.

    “He is a politician who has no political talent.""

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/08/rosie-duffield-interview-labour-sue-gray-women-misogyny/
    Yet somehow he won the lab leadership, turned the party around and won a landslide.
    He got extremely lucky: he was the last man standing with Corbyn, the Tories imploded, Covid and Ukraine speeded them on, and so on

    What Starmer is good at is being a stroppy opposition player, he is competitive, and he was needling and persistent in the Commons. He probably accelerated the Tories' demise, to a modest extent

    But the landslide is built on sand. 33.7% on a 60% turnout. Against one of the most unpopular governments in many decades. That shows how poor he is, in reality, and he's not going to get better
    Indeed, there have been 5 A+ politicians in UK politics this century, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and yes also Alex Salmond. Starmer is not one of them, nor are Jenrick or Badenoch
    Boris is not an “A+ politician”.
    While one cannot deny his charisma, he really barely rates on any ordinary political dimension. Though oftent touted for his campaigning, he doesn’t actually even do that. He’s essentially a television personality.

    Your list omits Brown, Sturgeon, and perhaps Drake, perhaps Gove, perhaps Osborn.
    Boris is an A+ politician, he delivered Brexit and won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher.


    Brown and Gove are B- politicians, even Osborne and Sturgeon only A-
    Boris is an A* arsehole.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.
    Many African Americans see themselves being pushed to the back of the queue by recent immigrants. They see the Democratic Party increasingly interested in Hispanic groups, and as taking the African American vote for granted.

    Harris’s history as a hard charging DA, especially after BLM, isn’t doing her many favours there, either.
    Many progressives won't even acknowledge that 'PC Culture' exists, they believe it is all just 'common sense'. In most cases the most appropriate response is to just leave them alone with their opinions and watch how things play out.

    If Trump wins it is at least in part because progressives have succumbed to belief and ideology over practical politics. It is most obvious with the migrant question. Money and resources gets poured in to accommodating people who have entered the country illegally, in a context where the state is failing to provide basic assistance to its own citizens. It should be obvious that citizens should always be prioritised over migrants but there is a kind of denial of reality and the issue becomes too hard to address for fear of breaking taboos in the tribe. Trump just plays absolutely brilliantly on these weaknesses; his opponents are even happy to help him along by insulting his supporters and claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with them is a 'fascist'.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,402
    dixiedean said:

    69 isn't particularly young, is it?

    69 is why I expect Starmer to retire shortly before the 2029 election, in which year he will be 67, and why although I acknowledge Boris's desire for another spin of the wheel, suspect the 60-year-old will run out of road.

    Although we have had older leaders, and America, Russia and China are run by men in their 70s, we should remember Harold Wilson was 60 when he retired, since when Mrs Thatcher was our oldest Prime Minister, leaving office at 65.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,980
    Okay, I’ll say it. RIP and all that, condolences to his family, but next Sunday’s papers could be one hell of a fun read.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,213
    edited October 12
    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

    And when Orban is in the Chair.
    Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

    You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.
    How would they count our three months? Or, are you suggested they'd let us have unlimited time - and live fully in another country - so long as we didn't work or claim benefits? Not sure that's allowed.

    Is there a Schengen state without FoM?
    Yes, Switzerland. Which has very restrictive immigration laws.

    And, I presume, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein
    Switzerland has FoM, despite not being in the EU. Pre-brexit you had the right to live and work there.

    San Marino isn't in Schengen, but doesn't have border controls. You can ask for a stamp if you pay.
    Before Brexit I had to count my days in Switzerland religiously and if I went over a certain number my employer had to apply for a work permit. Failure to do so invalidated any right to live and work there.

    Here are the rules.

    https://www.ch.ch/en/foreign-nationals-in-switzerland/working-in-switzerland/#citizens-of-euefta-member-states
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437

    dixiedean said:

    69 isn't particularly young, is it?

    69 is why I expect Starmer to retire shortly before the 2029 election, in which year he will be 67, and why although I acknowledge Boris's desire for another spin of the wheel, suspect the 60-year-old will run out of road.

    Although we have had older leaders, and America, Russia and China are run by men in their 70s, we should remember Harold Wilson was 60 when he retired, since when Mrs Thatcher was our oldest Prime Minister, leaving office at 65.
    Look at Blair in 1997 and 2007; or Cameron in 2005 and 2016; or Obama in 2008 and 2016. Or, to a lesser extent, Reagan in 1980 or 1988.

    Being PM or president is an incredibly hard job, and the way these guys ages shows exactly how much strain it puts on them.

    I would not say it's a young person's job - experience counts - but IMV it's not a job for someone in late middle-age.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864

    HYUFD said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    Certainly not the Russians even if there was anything suspicious, he was a regular presenter on Russia Today
    You may have missed how many Russians - once 'allies' of Putin himself - have had literal defenestrations.

    We are at war with Russia. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

    Leaving aside anything Salmond might or might not have known: the independence debate over Scotland is fairly quiescent at the moment. Salmond dying might be a good way of reigniting that debate.

    Putin wants discord.
    It won't, if anything it will recede as Salmond was a far more effective advocate for Scottish independence than Swinney is
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,712
    Sandpit said:

    Okay, I’ll say it. RIP and all that, condolences to his family, but next Sunday’s papers could be one hell of a fun read.

    Will they Finnish him off?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,012

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    You’ve got to pick a ticket or two boys.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,402

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

    However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398

    HYUFD said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    Certainly not the Russians even if there was anything suspicious, he was a regular presenter on Russia Today
    You may have missed how many Russians - once 'allies' of Putin himself - have had literal defenestrations.

    We are at war with Russia. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

    Leaving aside anything Salmond might or might not have known: the independence debate over Scotland is fairly quiescent at the moment. Salmond dying might be a good way of reigniting that debate.

    Putin wants discord.
    I am not sure about this theory but there is a brilliant account of how the Russian state manipulates the media, both domestically and internationally : "Nothing is true and everything is possible" by Peter Pomerantsev (2016). The basic point is that all narratives are co-opted and manipulated to maintain order internally and to sow discord externally.
    The account of 'Russia Today' is particularly brilliant. It is also a very readable book, about 200 pages or so, one you can read on the tube etc.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,835
    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

    And when Orban is in the Chair.
    Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

    You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.
    How would they count our three months? Or, are you suggested they'd let us have unlimited time - and live fully in another country - so long as we didn't work or claim benefits? Not sure that's allowed.

    Is there a Schengen state without FoM?
    Yes, Switzerland. Which has very restrictive immigration laws.

    And, I presume, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein
    Switzerland has FoM, despite not being in the EU. Pre-brexit you had the right to live and work there.

    San Marino isn't in Schengen, but doesn't have border controls. You can ask for a stamp if you pay.
    Before Brexit I had to count my days in Switzerland religiously and if I went over a certain number my employer had to apply for a work permit. Failure to do so invalidated any right to live and work there.

    Here are the rules.

    https://www.ch.ch/en/foreign-nationals-in-switzerland/working-in-switzerland/#citizens-of-euefta-member-states
    Right, but you had FoM if you had chosen to move there formally, from your link:

    "Thanks to freedom of movement, citizens of EU/EFTA member states can enter, live and work in Switzerland."

    So, the question remains: is there a country which has Schengen but not FoM? If not, is your idea of the UK joining Schengen but not having FoM even possible?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437
    darkage said:

    HYUFD said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    Certainly not the Russians even if there was anything suspicious, he was a regular presenter on Russia Today
    You may have missed how many Russians - once 'allies' of Putin himself - have had literal defenestrations.

    We are at war with Russia. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

    Leaving aside anything Salmond might or might not have known: the independence debate over Scotland is fairly quiescent at the moment. Salmond dying might be a good way of reigniting that debate.

    Putin wants discord.
    I am not sure about this theory but there is a brilliant account of how the Russian state manipulates the media, both domestically and internationally : "Nothing is true and everything is possible" by Peter Pomerantsev (2016). The basic point is that all narratives are co-opted and manipulated to maintain order internally and to sow discord externally.
    The account of 'Russia Today' is particularly brilliant. It is also a very readable book, about 200 pages or so, one you can read on the tube etc.
    I'm pretty convinced that that is one of the approaches they take. As an example; it might be good to fund an anti-oil environmental movement in the UK, even though Russia depends on oil and gas. Because it causes us more problems internally, and there are plenty of other markets for oil and gas.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take
    He married a much older woman than him (who ironically survives him) so it was likely never on the cards even then. It didn't seem to bother him too much, every Pope of course dies without issue
    New definition of the word 'every'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Popes_who_were_legally_married
    A lot of allegedlys there and none of them post 1850
    Many popes were dodgy and dissolute, no allegedly about it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

    However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.
    It's who pays for that security. If they need extra security, they should pay for it. If they require official police help, they should pay for it.

    "taxpayer-funded" is the major issue (there's a minor one about whether they should have the right to scarce police resources; that's an easier judgement.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,980

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Given that a Mr Sussex is currently sueing the Home Office over provision of security, giving blue lights to a pop singer does seem like an idiotic move by the Met.

    Outside of an event where they’re expected to walk through the front door, you actually move important people through the side door in an unmarked van or unremarkable car.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take
    He married a much older woman than him (who ironically survives him) so it was likely never on the cards even then. It didn't seem to bother him too much, every Pope of course dies without issue
    New definition of the word 'every'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Popes_who_were_legally_married
    A lot of allegedlys there and none of them post 1850
    Many popes were dodgy and dissolute, no allegedly about it.
    I've got a book about this somewhere:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398

    darkage said:

    HYUFD said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    Certainly not the Russians even if there was anything suspicious, he was a regular presenter on Russia Today
    You may have missed how many Russians - once 'allies' of Putin himself - have had literal defenestrations.

    We are at war with Russia. A cold war, but a war nonetheless.

    Leaving aside anything Salmond might or might not have known: the independence debate over Scotland is fairly quiescent at the moment. Salmond dying might be a good way of reigniting that debate.

    Putin wants discord.
    I am not sure about this theory but there is a brilliant account of how the Russian state manipulates the media, both domestically and internationally : "Nothing is true and everything is possible" by Peter Pomerantsev (2016). The basic point is that all narratives are co-opted and manipulated to maintain order internally and to sow discord externally.
    The account of 'Russia Today' is particularly brilliant. It is also a very readable book, about 200 pages or so, one you can read on the tube etc.
    I'm pretty convinced that that is one of the approaches they take. As an example; it might be good to fund an anti-oil environmental movement in the UK, even though Russia depends on oil and gas. Because it causes us more problems internally, and there are plenty of other markets for oil and gas.
    I would recommend getting Pomerantsev's book. I suppose it is not all that different to what the western countries did historically when 'interfering' in politics during and after the cold war. There is no interest in any of the causes that they 'promote' or give air time to - the aim is just to set groups off against each other so as to weaken the overall coherance of the opposing state.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,238

    Boris Johnson: Where did Tories go wrong? Thinking they didn’t need me

    The former PM tells our chief political commentator Tim Shipman what he thinks about Brexit, Donald Trump — and the comeback rumours that just won’t go away


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-interview-tim-shipman-wgg6kh66b

    This thread has an interesting theory about where the Tories went wrong, which I find compelling. They lost because nothing they did worked: austerity, Brexit, healthcare reform, levelling up etc

    https://bsky.app/profile/cjayanetti.bsky.social/post/3l6dbyxls4e23
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,402

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

    However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.
    It's who pays for that security. If they need extra security, they should pay for it. If they require official police help, they should pay for it.

    "taxpayer-funded" is the major issue (there's a minor one about whether they should have the right to scarce police resources; that's an easier judgement.)
    No, if there is a likelihood terrorists are targeting Swift and her concerts, the state should intervene. That's the point. It was not just that Taylor Swift is a VIP with friends in high places in which case, as you say, she should pay for (and almost certainly does pay for) her own bodyguards.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208
    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    What is suggests to me is that Germany has watered down Schengen. I can see why the professor is annoyed - it looks a bit slippery slopeish and not done. But a de facto suspension sounds like hyperbole to me.

    The big thing with Schengen is the ability just to walk, cycle or drive over the border with nothing but a “welcome to country x” sign. I love it - one of the joys of European travel. Especially wonderful on the high Alpine passes, or on the Riviera where one second you’re in France, then it’s Monaco then mamma Mia you’re in Italy.

    Switzerland, while a member, does rather spoil the effect by having erected lots of customs infrastructure and waving you over into a lane for inspection if they think you’re carrying contraband, or haven’t got your motorway tag for the year.
    Yes - it feels more like an evolution of schengen rather than its destruction. The reintroduction of border controls has been going on since pre covid years.
    Yes there have been so-called reintroductions of border controls between loads of Schengen countries going on for decades already. Leon only heard about it the other day so think it's something world-shatteringly new, and he also confuses Schengen repeatedly with Freedom of Movement, which is an entirely different thing.



    Not an entirely different thing at all. One is nested within the other, and underlines the other, as the EU Commission official website succinctly says:

    "Free movement of persons enables every EU citizen to travel, work and live in an EU country without special formalities. Schengen underpins this freedom by enabling citizens to move around the Schengen Area without being subject to border checks."

    https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/schengen-area_en#:~:text=Free movement of persons enables,being subject to border checks.
    The EU website is full of shit. Freedom of movement is unaffected by the absence of Schengen. Did you not even notice the UK being in the EU and the "Brexit" thing a few years ago? Maybe you don't follow the news at all - it was quite a big story, or maybe it was before your time?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take
    He married a much older woman than him (who ironically survives him) so it was likely never on the cards even then. It didn't seem to bother him too much, every Pope of course dies without issue
    New definition of the word 'every'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Popes_who_were_legally_married
    A lot of allegedlys there and none of them post 1850
    Many popes were dodgy and dissolute, no allegedly about it.
    I've got a book about this somewhere:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes
    I've got the papal history by John Julius Norwich which was a good read.

    There's another one called saints and sinners.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 13,213
    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    Hmm. Good job the Ireland-UK border is not affected by Schengen. That would have been interesting.

    And when Orban is in the Chair.
    Britain should have joined Schengen. It would have made Brexit so much easier. I would still have spare pages in my passport for a start.

    You can be in Schengen without having free movement, a customs union or single market membership (much though I’d prefer all 3). And you don’t have to be in the EU. It doesn’t stop you catching and deporting illegal immigrants, checking vehicles for drugs or firearms or enforcing visa restrictions. But it does mean you could just rock up to St Pancras and hop on the train like you do the Thalys from Paris to Brussels.
    How would they count our three months? Or, are you suggested they'd let us have unlimited time - and live fully in another country - so long as we didn't work or claim benefits? Not sure that's allowed.

    Is there a Schengen state without FoM?
    Yes, Switzerland. Which has very restrictive immigration laws.

    And, I presume, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein
    Switzerland has FoM, despite not being in the EU. Pre-brexit you had the right to live and work there.

    San Marino isn't in Schengen, but doesn't have border controls. You can ask for a stamp if you pay.
    Before Brexit I had to count my days in Switzerland religiously and if I went over a certain number my employer had to apply for a work permit. Failure to do so invalidated any right to live and work there.

    Here are the rules.

    https://www.ch.ch/en/foreign-nationals-in-switzerland/working-in-switzerland/#citizens-of-euefta-member-states
    Right, but you had FoM if you had chosen to move there formally, from your link:

    "Thanks to freedom of movement, citizens of EU/EFTA member states can enter, live and work in Switzerland."

    So, the question remains: is there a country which has Schengen but not FoM? If not, is your idea of the UK joining Schengen but not having FoM even possible?
    I can’t see any procedural reason not, because Switzerland already polices its own migration rules without having to process people at the border (it doesn’t process me when I drive across, but my rights in Switzerland are different from my rights in the EU). We don’t stamp passports of Americans, Koreans or Japanese or various other nationals but we still kick out overstayers. Politics are another matter of course. We should have joined before we left the EU. Just like the Irish border it could then have been a point of negotiation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,864
    Trump making fundraising detours into blue states

    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/12/politics/trump-coachella-rally/index.html
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437
    FF43 said:

    Boris Johnson: Where did Tories go wrong? Thinking they didn’t need me

    The former PM tells our chief political commentator Tim Shipman what he thinks about Brexit, Donald Trump — and the comeback rumours that just won’t go away


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-interview-tim-shipman-wgg6kh66b

    This thread has an interesting theory about where the Tories went wrong, which I find compelling. They lost because nothing they did worked: austerity, Brexit, healthcare reform, levelling up etc

    https://bsky.app/profile/cjayanetti.bsky.social/post/3l6dbyxls4e23
    That may be true, but Johnson had less than a year before Covid struck. After March 2020, pretty much all of government was (rightly) focussed on that.

    Blaming the failure of 'levelling up' on Johnson given the length of time he had before Covid struck is, IMV, stupid. And even if covid had not struck, it was a policy that would take a decade or more to show real effects.

    The sadness is that 'levelling up' has been utterly ignore by his successors.

    For the rest of it: yes, they're much more arguable.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,402
    AI news. I asked Copilot for the ages of our last few Prime Ministers when they left office. The reason I did not paste the table it gave me was I spotted its mistake on John Major (born 1943 so not 57 in 1997) and was too lazy to check all of the others.

    Do you still want an AI-controlled robot checking your prostate? It might insert its finger three inches too far.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,858
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take
    He married a much older woman than him (who ironically survives him) so it was likely never on the cards even then. It didn't seem to bother him too much, every Pope of course dies without issue
    New definition of the word 'every'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Popes_who_were_legally_married
    A lot of allegedlys there and none of them post 1850
    Many popes were dodgy and dissolute, no allegedly about it.
    I've got a book about this somewhere:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes
    I've got the papal history by John Julius Norwich which was a good read.

    There's another one called saints and sinners.
    Saints and Sinners is by Eamon Duffy and is outstanding; as are his other books.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,402

    FF43 said:

    Boris Johnson: Where did Tories go wrong? Thinking they didn’t need me

    The former PM tells our chief political commentator Tim Shipman what he thinks about Brexit, Donald Trump — and the comeback rumours that just won’t go away


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-interview-tim-shipman-wgg6kh66b

    This thread has an interesting theory about where the Tories went wrong, which I find compelling. They lost because nothing they did worked: austerity, Brexit, healthcare reform, levelling up etc

    https://bsky.app/profile/cjayanetti.bsky.social/post/3l6dbyxls4e23
    That may be true, but Johnson had less than a year before Covid struck. After March 2020, pretty much all of government was (rightly) focussed on that.

    Blaming the failure of 'levelling up' on Johnson given the length of time he had before Covid struck is, IMV, stupid. And even if covid had not struck, it was a policy that would take a decade or more to show real effects.

    The sadness is that 'levelling up' has been utterly ignore by his successors.

    For the rest of it: yes, they're much more arguable.
    Levelling up was Dominic Cummings' idea, as he recognised the Brexit vote as a NOTA from the left behind. Once Cummings was ousted, levelling up lost its champion and withered. Boris gave it no attention and Rishi was actively hostile.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,828
    edited October 12
    Does the death of Salmond affect in any way the legal process over the arrests???
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,173
    darkage said:

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.
    Many African Americans see themselves being pushed to the back of the queue by recent immigrants. They see the Democratic Party increasingly interested in Hispanic groups, and as taking the African American vote for granted.

    Harris’s history as a hard charging DA, especially after BLM, isn’t doing her many favours there, either.
    Many progressives won't even acknowledge that 'PC Culture' exists, they believe it is all just 'common sense'. In most cases the most appropriate response is to just leave them alone with their opinions and watch how things play out.

    If Trump wins it is at least in part because progressives have succumbed to belief and ideology over practical politics. It is most obvious with the migrant question. Money and resources gets poured in to accommodating people who have entered the country illegally, in a context where the state is failing to provide basic assistance to its own citizens. It should be obvious that citizens should always be prioritised over migrants but there is a kind of denial of reality and the issue becomes too hard to address for fear of breaking taboos in the tribe. Trump just plays absolutely brilliantly on these weaknesses; his opponents are even happy to help him along by insulting his supporters and claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with them is a 'fascist'.
    Have you any hard evidence for that, beyond the MAGA rhetoric ?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437

    FF43 said:

    Boris Johnson: Where did Tories go wrong? Thinking they didn’t need me

    The former PM tells our chief political commentator Tim Shipman what he thinks about Brexit, Donald Trump — and the comeback rumours that just won’t go away


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/boris-johnson-interview-tim-shipman-wgg6kh66b

    This thread has an interesting theory about where the Tories went wrong, which I find compelling. They lost because nothing they did worked: austerity, Brexit, healthcare reform, levelling up etc

    https://bsky.app/profile/cjayanetti.bsky.social/post/3l6dbyxls4e23
    That may be true, but Johnson had less than a year before Covid struck. After March 2020, pretty much all of government was (rightly) focussed on that.

    Blaming the failure of 'levelling up' on Johnson given the length of time he had before Covid struck is, IMV, stupid. And even if covid had not struck, it was a policy that would take a decade or more to show real effects.

    The sadness is that 'levelling up' has been utterly ignore by his successors.

    For the rest of it: yes, they're much more arguable.
    Levelling up was Dominic Cummings' idea, as he recognised the Brexit vote as a NOTA from the left behind. Once Cummings was ousted, levelling up lost its champion and withered. Boris gave it no attention and Rishi was actively hostile.
    That was well after Covid struck. We're still recovering from that 12 to 18 months - politically and fiscally.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,208

    kamski said:

    darkage said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Wow

    Poland suspends the right of asylum

    "Poland will “temporarily suspend the right to asylum”, announced
    @donaldtusk
    in a speech outlining a tougher new migration strategy aimed at “regaining control and ensuring security".

    "I will demand recognition of this decision in Europe," he added"

    https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1845062353865302380

    "🇵🇱Polish Prime Minister has announced a migration strategy for Poland:

    ‘One of the elements of the migration strategy will be the temporary, territorial suspension of the right to asylum and I will demand the right to recognize this decision in Europe.’

    ‘We will not implement European ideas if we are certain that they harm our interests. And I am talking about the migration pact’

    And this is "moderate" Donald Tusk

    Asylum, migration and Schengen are breaking Europe into pieces

    Schengen is generally popular : take Switzerland, they narrowly voted to join about 15 years ago, but polls now show support of 70:30.
    Less popular in Germany, where it has now been effectively suspended
    So you now need to show your passport at a border post when you cross?

    And trains now have passport inspectors on them?

    Or perhaps - to quote the German government page: "travelers within the Schengen Area may face random inspections when entering Germany"?

    Which is why I said "effectively", not entirely
    So, 'effectively' means: 'not at all'.
    The whole point of Schengen is COMPLETE Free Movement, nothing at all stopping anyone moving from one Schengen country to another. That has been suspended, in effect, in Germany. Total Free Movement has ended. However they have not brought back the border guards and barbed wire. Yet
    Sure, sure.

    That's what "effectively" means. Everyone agrees with you.

    No, I'm with Leon on this point of extreme pedantry. Schengen meant no limitations to movement within the Schengen area. There now are limitations. So it's been suspended.
    Would that mean free movement in the UK was suspended if roadblocks were put up to catch an escaped criminal?
    Here's a professor of EU law calling it "a de facto suspension of Schengen", which is very close to my "effectively" -as in "indirectly"

    "The way Europeans and residents of the EU live their lives is now at risk, and their governments and leaders are to blame

    Great story on the de facto suspension of #schengen and imminent crumbling by ⁦
    @GuyChazan
    ⁩ ⁦
    ⁩ ⁦
    @FT"

    https://x.com/alemannoEU/status/1842877857132957770

    For this second meaning of "effectively" see here:


    effectively
    /ɪˈfɛktɪvli/
    adverb
    1 in such a manner as to achieve a desired result.
    "make sure that resources are used effectively"

    2 indirectly; actually but not officially or explicitly.
    "they were effectively controlled by the people they were supposed to be investigating"
    What is suggests to me is that Germany has watered down Schengen. I can see why the professor is annoyed - it looks a bit slippery slopeish and not done. But a de facto suspension sounds like hyperbole to me.

    The big thing with Schengen is the ability just to walk, cycle or drive over the border with nothing but a “welcome to country x” sign. I love it - one of the joys of European travel. Especially wonderful on the high Alpine passes, or on the Riviera where one second you’re in France, then it’s Monaco then mamma Mia you’re in Italy.

    Switzerland, while a member, does rather spoil the effect by having erected lots of customs infrastructure and waving you over into a lane for inspection if they think you’re carrying contraband, or haven’t got your motorway tag for the year.
    Yes - it feels more like an evolution of schengen rather than its destruction. The reintroduction of border controls has been going on since pre covid years.
    Yes there have been so-called reintroductions of border controls between loads of Schengen countries going on for decades already. Leon only heard about it the other day so think it's something world-shatteringly new, and he also confuses Schengen repeatedly with Freedom of Movement, which is an entirely different thing.



    France “suspends” Schengen on a regular basis whenever she feels like it. She did so for the Olympics and in theory might still be doing so. In reality, you just drive through while throwing an ironic bird to the ‘border guard’ who is more interested in his lunch.
    https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/schengen-area/temporary-reintroduction-border-control_en

    Says that France has currently reintroduced border controls, I'll be crossing the border into France tomorrow I doubt I'll see any of these mythical border guards
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,141

    Leon said:

    Putting my tinfoil hat on, I hope Salmond gets a thorough autopsy considering where he died.

    Though why the Russians would want him dead is another matter...

    He was a big bloke. That's probably the likeliest explanation. I never disliked him in the way that some did. I find it very sad that he died a long way from home and probably pretty much alone.

    Hmm. 69 is far too young, of course, but if you gotta go a speedy heart attack is one of the best possible ways (if that is indeed what happened)

    For me the sadness, if there is any, is that he didn't have kids. "Dying without issue" always strikes me as a terribly melancholy phrase

    There could of course be any number of reasons for that, and he may never have wanted kids, so this is an entirely personal, subjective take

    Yep, I hope it was quick to the extent he had no idea what was happening.

    Never understood that pov. Obviously I’d prefer to avoid the pain, fear & degradation factors (a forlorn hope I fear) but I wouldn’t want to miss the moment.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,676

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

    However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.
    I agree. Particularly after Trump targeted her with his tweet I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,980
    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.
    Many African Americans see themselves being pushed to the back of the queue by recent immigrants. They see the Democratic Party increasingly interested in Hispanic groups, and as taking the African American vote for granted.

    Harris’s history as a hard charging DA, especially after BLM, isn’t doing her many favours there, either.
    Many progressives won't even acknowledge that 'PC Culture' exists, they believe it is all just 'common sense'. In most cases the most appropriate response is to just leave them alone with their opinions and watch how things play out.

    If Trump wins it is at least in part because progressives have succumbed to belief and ideology over practical politics. It is most obvious with the migrant question. Money and resources gets poured in to accommodating people who have entered the country illegally, in a context where the state is failing to provide basic assistance to its own citizens. It should be obvious that citizens should always be prioritised over migrants but there is a kind of denial of reality and the issue becomes too hard to address for fear of breaking taboos in the tribe. Trump just plays absolutely brilliantly on these weaknesses; his opponents are even happy to help him along by insulting his supporters and claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with them is a 'fascist'.
    Have you any hard evidence for that, beyond the MAGA rhetoric ?

    The Biden-Harris administration are not exactly funding this in secret. It’s loud and proud in their own press releases.

    https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20240412/department-homeland-security-announces-300-million-direct-funding https://www.dhs.gov/news/2024/08/28/department-homeland-security-announces-380-million-additional-funding-communities
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,173
    Have you watched Culinary Class Wars on Netflix, @Leon ?

    There's possibly a Seoul trip/article in it for you.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.
    Many African Americans see themselves being pushed to the back of the queue by recent immigrants. They see the Democratic Party increasingly interested in Hispanic groups, and as taking the African American vote for granted.

    Harris’s history as a hard charging DA, especially after BLM, isn’t doing her many favours there, either.
    Many progressives won't even acknowledge that 'PC Culture' exists, they believe it is all just 'common sense'. In most cases the most appropriate response is to just leave them alone with their opinions and watch how things play out.

    If Trump wins it is at least in part because progressives have succumbed to belief and ideology over practical politics. It is most obvious with the migrant question. Money and resources gets poured in to accommodating people who have entered the country illegally, in a context where the state is failing to provide basic assistance to its own citizens. It should be obvious that citizens should always be prioritised over migrants but there is a kind of denial of reality and the issue becomes too hard to address for fear of breaking taboos in the tribe. Trump just plays absolutely brilliantly on these weaknesses; his opponents are even happy to help him along by insulting his supporters and claiming that anyone that doesn't agree with them is a 'fascist'.
    Have you any hard evidence for that, beyond the MAGA rhetoric ?

    I've got no more evidence than you as I am reliant on google but the 'sanctuary city' thing seems definetly real. The whole thing that set off my interest in this was seeing some discussion on Linkedin about the possibility of cutting the expenditure per migrant on the part of NYC to just 45,000 dollars a year by renting temporary modular factory houses, the hotels seem to be costing something like 300 dollars a night.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-pursuing-thousands-hotel-rooms-house-migrants-amid-multi-billion-dollar-costs

    You would have thought that the authorities would be questioning the wisdom of spending even 45k per year housing migrants with so many other problems going on?
  • Barnesian said:

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

    However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.
    I agree. Particularly after Trump targeted her with his tweet I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT.
    Why would that encourage some kind of terrorism? Are we now going to clear our throats look to the ground and mumble, "achulley Taylor Swift was not in fact targeted by islamic extremist but mostly at risk because of someone tweeting he didn't like her/her music".
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

    Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?
    You are unaware of PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief and leading Putin-pimper/Trump-fluffer?
  • Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

    Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?
    You are unaware of PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief and leading Putin-pimper/Trump-fluffer?
    Yes, I want him to win, or more so I loath the alternative. He doesn't really stand for anything I stand for, as an economic liberal with mild social conservatism who believes free markets and free trade enriches all those who engage in it.
    But, I cannot abide anyone who does pronoun declarations, land acknowledgement and think its a good idea to affirm confused young children about their sexuality and what adults call gender identity.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,987
    Cicero said:

    ohnotnow said:

    DavidL said:

    Salmond is a huge loss to Scottish politics. Deeply flawed but clever, witty and persuasive.

    Sturgeon will be relieved his action against the Scottish government is unlikely to go further. Those who gave evidence in his trial will be likewise.

    It will take a long time for this to shake down. Can Alva survive without him? I sincerely doubt it. What are those who support independence but are disgusted by the corruption, cynicism and weird obsessions of the current SNP leadership going to do now?

    So far Wings is silent. He and his ilk, which includes @malcolmg , must be devastated tonight. My condolences to them and his family.

    On the other hand - Alba might find new life outside of his shadow. It might finally become the new SNP that he clearly felt was needed.
    Genuinely I doubt it. I knew him a little and was at the same uni as his brother,l. He was a one-of-a-kind and it was truly a singular moment in Scottish politics. Independence is gone for this generation and maybe for ever.
    It was already gone. I'm more wondering if New Alba might come out of it a-la John Smith.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,676

    Barnesian said:

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

    However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.
    I agree. Particularly after Trump targeted her with his tweet I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT.
    Why would that encourage some kind of terrorism? Are we now going to clear our throats look to the ground and mumble, "achulley Taylor Swift was not in fact targeted by islamic extremist but mostly at risk because of someone tweeting he didn't like her/her music".
    It wasn't that he didn't like her music.

    It was because she endorsed Kamala Harris and has millions of followers. He was livid. He knows what he is doing.

    I don't think Taylor Swift is in any danger from islamic extremists. She is in danger from MAGA and needs protection. If I were her security I'd hide her abroad until after the election. There is a serious risk.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 28,402

    Barnesian said:

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

    However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.
    I agree. Particularly after Trump targeted her with his tweet I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT.
    Why would that encourage some kind of terrorism? Are we now going to clear our throats look to the ground and mumble, "achulley Taylor Swift was not in fact targeted by islamic extremist but mostly at risk because of someone tweeting he didn't like her/her music".
    That might have been a joke. I've been looking unsuccessfully for the SNL(?) clip of another Trump/TS joke.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437
    edited October 12
    Incidentally, I watched a 2018 film yesterday, Cutterhead.

    A 90 minute horror-drama film set in a tunnel boring machine in Denmark. It is remarkably good, and uses darkness, claustrophobia and sound to immense effect. Essentially it is a film set in just two 'rooms'. And it is anything but boring.

    Available on Amazon Prime.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hCTvmopw30

    I wanted to go into tunnelling as a career; this film made me kinda glad I didn't.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,676

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

    Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?
    You are unaware of PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief and leading Putin-pimper/Trump-fluffer?
    Yes, I want him to win, or more so I loath the alternative. He doesn't really stand for anything I stand for, as an economic liberal with mild social conservatism who believes free markets and free trade enriches all those who engage in it.
    But, I cannot abide anyone who does pronoun declarations, land acknowledgement and think its a good idea to affirm confused young children about their sexuality and what adults call gender identity.
    Sad
  • twistedfirestopper3twistedfirestopper3 Posts: 2,452
    edited October 12

    The attorney-general was called in by the government to press the Metropolitan Police into providing Taylor Swift with a taxpayer-funded blue-light escort to her Wembley concerts this summer.

    Lord Hermer KC, the government’s top lawyer, was asked to intervene after Scotland Yard warned that granting the US pop star “VVIP” protection would breach its long-standing protocols.

    According to sources, it was only after this intervention that the Met relented and Swift was provided with the escort. It is unclear who requested the attorney-general’s involvement but the decision is highly unusual.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/taylor-swifts-police-escort-was-approved-after-pressure-from-attorney-general-h0b09ckl5

    Taylor Swift has passed me by in musical terms. I am old and no-one gave me a free ticket so I have never knowingly listened to her tunes.

    However, I really cannot see what this particular fuss is about, bearing in mind Taylor Swift had recently been forced to cancel Austrian concerts after being targeted by terrorists. If there is to be an inquiry, it should be into why the Metropolitan Police did not see the need for special precautions.
    The rozzers won't turn up to most crimes committed on the majority of the population, but they'll put on the blue lights for a millionaire popstar.
    Mind you, the AG probably didn't want all the Labour politicians with free Swifty tickets to have to hang around with the lower orders too long.
  • Barnesian said:

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

    Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?
    You are unaware of PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief and leading Putin-pimper/Trump-fluffer?
    Yes, I want him to win, or more so I loath the alternative. He doesn't really stand for anything I stand for, as an economic liberal with mild social conservatism who believes free markets and free trade enriches all those who engage in it.
    But, I cannot abide anyone who does pronoun declarations, land acknowledgement and think its a good idea to affirm confused young children about their sexuality and what adults call gender identity.
    Sad
    Well there you go, its the filthy pervert who predates on grown women (include adult entertainment stars), or the ideology of filthy perverts who who predate on young children.

    Not that it really matters either way because I don't have a vote.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,437

    Black voters drifting to Trump reports NY Times.

    Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind.

    This is the problem. The immediate reaction is to patronise not seek to understand. Frank Luntz has said again and again that Trump's appeal is due to immigration and inflation.

    On the other hand, Trump is now regularly using fascist language and threatening to lock up and kill US citizens who he does not like. At some point, surely, we need to give people the agency to know that they are voting for a racist who does not believe in the rule of law and to not care.

    Look it's the PC culture that's been foisted upon us. I'm not particularly a fan but referring to a racial demographic as turkeys voting for Christmas is a little eyebrow raising.

    I agree on the Turkeys comment. People make informed choices. Those voting for Trump know exactly who he is. They don't care. My overriding thought is that if the US really were the greatest country on earth he would be absolutely nowhere near power rather than about to be re-elected President. What puzzles me is why so many on the UK right want him to win given the campaign he has fought and the policies he supports, which will clearly be very bad news for the UK.

    Are there that many on the UK right who want him to win? A few opportunistic politicians but not that many people so far as I can tell. Is there a single person on pb?
    You are unaware of PB's resident Sophist-in-Chief and leading Putin-pimper/Trump-fluffer?
    Yes, I want him to win, or more so I loath the alternative. He doesn't really stand for anything I stand for, as an economic liberal with mild social conservatism who believes free markets and free trade enriches all those who engage in it.
    But, I cannot abide anyone who does pronoun declarations, land acknowledgement and think its a good idea to affirm confused young children about their sexuality and what adults call gender identity.
    Yeah, because you care so much about women and girls that you support the side that will restrict abortion and other contraceptive rights.
This discussion has been closed.