The stat was 'political data' from the charity Shelter to grab headlines.
The root of the misleading comparison is that they are comparing "golf courses" and all their ancillaries with the physical footprint of actual house buildings themselves, combined with some dodgy estimates even for those numbers.
Land allocated to housing in normal perception includes drives, gardens, roads etc.
I remember the discussion well, it centred on Shelter’s idea of what homelessness was, IIRC one aspect was a bedroom deemed too small, or shared with a sibling after a certain age.
Totally barking
Is that right?! Christ!
At a stretch you could include that on a list of people not adequately homed, as it were, but that sort of definitional trickery, using a definition far removed from the general understanding, is downright underhanded if true, and makes addressing the real problem harder. I know relative poverty can be a tricky one too, but not to that level.
Its also culturally insensitive, a lot of African and Asian cultures the family sleeps together in one room even if there are extra rooms available.
Evidence, please.
How about having spent the last ten years living with families in the Philippines who do exactly that ? It is said that most filipinos never sleep alone their entire life, they sleep with their extended family until they get married, then if they are rich enough, usually after the first child is born, they move away to their own place and start accumulating their own extended family.
Mr. kle4, that is correct. If not enough people are disadvantaged, just broaden the definition of disadvantage. Hence 'relative poverty'. A perpetual cause for outrage among charities, totally divorced from actual poverty.
I think that the diminished moral standing of charitable works as they professionalise and focus on gouging money with chuggers and churglars is not an especially good turn of events.
To take one example, the behaviour of RSPCA has done a lot to damage its standing in recent years.
They seemed to be an example of an organisation which thinks that because its cause is noble or their motives pure this permits them to do whatever they want in pursuit of their noble objective/pure motives. A very dangerous belief. Not least because others will be misled into not challenging them precisely because they risk being accused of stopping the person/body from doing their noble thing. But the power mad are no less dangerous because they believe they are good.
Isn't that what happened with that kids play lady or whatever the charity was called? Her defence for being incompetent overspending wasters was 'think of the children'.
I cannot stand that type of behaviour. It's one reason why as I've gotten older I've found it harder to enjoy a lot of generic cop dramas as they bathe in that attitude, in the idea if your objective is noble how dare anyone try to stop You doing what want, no matter if there are good reasons, and yet are rarely shown as in the wrong, coming across as hypocrite. Comedy cop shows like Brooklyn nine nine have their characters care more about rule of law and proper procedure!
That my job involves trying to get people to follow proper processes nay have something to do with my increased respect for rules over pure motive.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
American exceptionalism. We expect better of the soi-disent leader of the free world. Different standards apply.
So we expect better from U.S. voters too you mean who elected him despite the fact we set the ball rolling and created the ideal conditions for Trump when we voted for Brexit!
"Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself. As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, ‘John Bercow consistently voted for the Iraq War’.
On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn’t been made, even though it hadn’t. On the same day he voted for the government to ‘use all means necessary’ to ensure the destruction of Iraq’s WMD.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
The spin line from the Zoomers this morning is that this polling comes after "no campaigning for Indy since 2014"
We can only be grateful to the Yoon parties for keeping the issue at the forefront of everyone's thoughts.
"Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself. As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, ‘John Bercow consistently voted for the Iraq War’.
On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn’t been made, even though it hadn’t. On the same day he voted for the government to ‘use all means necessary’ to ensure the destruction of Iraq’s WMD.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Then May should give Sturgeon her referendum. Let's see if she does.
Scotland and England are drifting apart - just as England drifted away from the EU. There will have to be a complete rethink of the UK constitutional settlement or the UK will cease to exist. Given our political leaders are so utterly mediocre, I am betting on the latter.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
The spin line from the Zoomers this morning is that this polling comes after "no campaigning for Indy since 2014"
We can only be grateful to the Yoon parties for keeping the issue at the forefront of everyone's thoughts.
To be fair, the snp by their mere presence as the most popular party in Scotland make independence the elephant in the room. They don't need to raise the prospect if they don't want to, because by mere existence and popularity they cause a ruckus among their opponents.
Mr. kle4, that is correct. If not enough people are disadvantaged, just broaden the definition of disadvantage. Hence 'relative poverty'. A perpetual cause for outrage among charities, totally divorced from actual poverty.
I think that the diminished moral standing of charitable works as they professionalise and focus on gouging money with chuggers and churglars is not an especially good turn of events.
To take one example, the behaviour of RSPCA has done a lot to damage its standing in recent years.
Not just in recent years. In my very first proper job, I had to deal with them. I was an expert then on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, CITES and how they impacted on the trade in wild raptors. The RSPCA had scarce regard for the law, thought themselves above it and behaved in ways which would (or should) have led to sackings and disciplinary offences had it been done by anyone else.
They seemed to be an example of an organisation which thinks that because its cause is noble or their motives pure this permits them to do whatever they want in pursuit of their noble objective/pure motives. A very dangerous belief. Not least because others will be misled into not challenging them precisely because they risk being accused of stopping the person/body from doing their noble thing. But the power mad are no less dangerous because they believe they are good.
More dangerous, actually, hence CS Lewis' comment that the worst kind of tyranny is one that is sincerely exercised for the good of its victims.
It's a pity, because trying to prevent the abuse of animals is a good thing.
Bruce Sterlings' novel 'Holy Fire' has an interesting take on it. There are one-shot radical rejuvenation therapies, access to which is gated via the lifetime amount of social good each citizen has contributed. It's essentially a do-gooding gerontocratic oligarchy. The young suffer because they're competing against nonagarians who are just as youthful, but have the experience & assets to boot.
Infantilisation is definitely a thing. What Bercow has done, if you think about it, is equivalent to announcing he is having a birthday party, with the sole intention of being able to tell someone that he is not being invited to it. How would the situation now differ if he had said absolutely nothing at all about it?
And I think the blame lies largely with the internet. If you take this very site, more than half the posters (and I do not exclude myself) frequently taunt other posters in a way which pre-internet wasn't possible or acceptable. Trump with his tweets has simply taken the infantilisation to a higher level.
Another consequence of the infantilisation is a playground conviction that anyone not in gang A must necessarily be in gang B, and vice versa. Even if I now say that I think Trump is a dangerous arsehat I am pretty sure I am about to be denounced as a Trumper, because the thrust of the post is anti-Bercow and this bit is clearly just a disclaimer tacked on the end.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Then May should give Sturgeon her referendum. Let's see if she does.
Why should she? Not one poll is currently showing a Yes vote so there is clearly no change from the last No vote and of course with her own party now taking votes from the SNP as well as Scottish Labour she has little to fear from Sturgeon
The aspect that Cyxlefree doesn't address is the Speaker's role as the representative of the Commons. Nobody disputes that when he, for instance, makes a speech stressing the need to protect backbench MPs against pressure (something I benefited from myself from a Soeaker - can't remember which one). If he believes - and I think from my own contacts and from published material that it's the case - that the majority of MPs are profoundly unhappy about Trump speaking in Parliament and that it would likely to be subject to both boycotts and disruption by Members, then in my view he had a duty to say so. There is literally nobody else who can speak for MPs without regard to party lines, Ministerial careers and so on.
The other examples given didn't attract any significant opposition from MPs. Perhaps they should have, and perhaps the row here will help stimulate a genuine debate in Parliament on who Members would really like to have.
American exceptionalism. We expect better of the soi-disent leader of the free world. Different standards apply.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what our relationship with the US would be like if they still had Jim Crow laws.
Give it a couple of years and we might find out.
We don't need that though experiment. We just need to look back at what it was when they did have such laws.
Not really - we had different laws back then and the UK was a very different place.
Racism certainly existed in the UK, but even pre -war, a lot of British people who visited the US were shocked by legally-enforced segregation, and even more so when US forces stationed here in WWII tried to enforce it. Also shocking in its way, were the experiences of some black US visitors to this country, when they discovered they weren't barred from leading hotels.
American exceptionalism. We expect better of the soi-disent leader of the free world. Different standards apply.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what our relationship with the US would be like if they still had Jim Crow laws.
Give it a couple of years and we might find out.
We don't need that though experiment. We just need to look back at what it was when they did have such laws.
Not really - we had different laws back then and the UK was a very different place.
No irish, no blacks, no dogs.
Even if we didn't have anti-discrimination laws, we did not have anything like the Jim Crow laws in the US or lynching etc. We still saw the US as an ally and sucked up/had a good relationship (delete as appropriate) with her. I think it would be the same now even if we made more noise about such laws. After all, countries did not boycott the UK over its treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland.
The ability to turn a blind eye is very widespread and, arguably, necessary, in international relations.
American exceptionalism. We expect better of the soi-disent leader of the free world. Different standards apply.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what our relationship with the US would be like if they still had Jim Crow laws.
Give it a couple of years and we might find out.
We don't need that though experiment. We just need to look back at what it was when they did have such laws.
Not really - we had different laws back then and the UK was a very different place.
Racism certainly existed in the UK, but even pre -war, a lot of British people who visited the US were shocked by legally-enforced segregation, and even more so when US forces stationed here in WWII tried to enforce it. Also shocking in its way, were the experiences of some black US visitors to this country, when they discovered they weren't barred from leading hotels.
Of course. But we basically accepted that is how it was in the US. I am not sure that would be the case now, given how things have developed in the UK. It is true that over here race is just not the issue it is over there. It seems to cut through absolutely everything.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
The spin line from the Zoomers this morning is that this polling comes after "no campaigning for Indy since 2014"
We can only be grateful to the Yoon parties for keeping the issue at the forefront of everyone's thoughts.
To be fair, the snp by their mere presence as the most popular party in Scotland make independence the elephant in the room. They don't need to raise the prospect if they don't want to, because by mere existence and popularity they cause a ruckus among their opponents.
Of course, hence in many cases we can let our opponents do the campaigning; a sort of political Jujutsu.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of course they will, Union supporters tend to be older and they have higher turnout so whatever the No poll rating you can probably increase it by at least 2 to 3%. Leaving the EU and the Single Market the SNP told us would lead to a Yes landslide, the most interesting thing is that is not happening
Mr. kle4, there was a more forthright (ahem) attitude to ends justifying means in classical and medieval times. Livy praised a Roman army (in Rome and Italy) for slaughtering a huge number of adult males in a rival city. Likewise when Richard the Lionheart and Saladin were having hardball negotiations outside a city (maybe Acre, I forget).
The Lionheart had won a battle before Saladin arrived and taken a large number of prisoners. However, food and water supplies were low. Saladin was stringing out negotiations to weaken the Crusader army. The Lionheart responded by killing most/all of the prisoners even though he'd promised them their lives if they surrendered (NB Saladin did likewise to prisoners).
Worth also noting that many kings we might consider tyrants today were praised and admired for their vigorous/vicious approach to law and order. And we see with the 'punch a Nazi' idiocy that a lot of people are still quite happy to support violence beyond the law if it's directed at those they consider wrong (ie a moral cause, in their eyes).
I'm not exactly sure what these 'huge' 8anti-Trump demonstrations are meant to achieve. He's sexist, and racist and misogynist, according to these people who know everything. For the record, I suspect he is, but that's only my personal opinion. If they protest enough, will he become a Guardian-reading Liberal?
i went down to Grosvenor Square London in 1067 or 1968, and what did I achieve. I had a good day out. I saw a few middle class Trots assault the police and thought ... they'll get their heads kicked in if they're not careful, and they succeeded in that. At least, they had an issue they cared about (although much of it was anti-Americanism). Even the large anti-Iraq invasion protests had a cause they believed in (as did I). So I was glad when they didn't smash glass or burn cars
These recent protests seem to be against a President that is democratically elected. They may not like it, and they may think they can change it by causing enough trouble. Is that not anti-democratic? To be fair to them, I think it makes them feel better and burnishes their right-on credentials with their peer-group. So I'm happy for them to go ahead.
I voted Labour in 1983. If the Americans had protested against us electing a 'commie', I would have thought ... "What a set of dickheads!"
What on earth is the point of protesting to make yourself feel better? Political protest as therapy? Give me strength. If you need a walk go to the country.
Not protesting to make me feeel better, though it should be a good day out.
Demonstrations often shift opinion. The '68 Grosvenor Square demonstrations put some backbone into Wilson resisting US pressure to get involved in Vietnam. The anti war Iraq demonstrations should have been listened to.
The right of peaceful protest is a hallmark of democracy, enshrined in Ammendment 1 of the US Constitution. Would that we had such protection here!
I shall be protesting against a trade deal that reduces Britains consumer protections and protects British interests, May would sell us down the river if she could.
Protesting to start the process of effecting change is good. But too often it seems to be just about the protest. And then nothing. That's just self-indulgence.
I too wish we had the US's protections for free speech and peaceful protest. Worrying that Trump is reported as saying that he wants to have something like British libel laws in the US. They are an abomination. With luck, that proposal will go nowhere.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Then May should give Sturgeon her referendum. Let's see if she does.
Why should she? Not one poll is currently showing a Yes vote so there is clearly no change from the last No vote and of course with her own party now taking votes from the SNP as well as Scottish Labour she has little to fear from Sturgeon
I guess it's going to be a Yoons' 'May shouldn't give them a referendum' day rather than a 'Sturgeon would definitely lose a second referendum' one.
The aspect that Cyxlefree doesn't address is the Speaker's role as the representative of the Commons. Nobody disputes that when he, for instance, makes a speech stressing the need to protect backbench MPs against pressure (something I benefited from myself from a Soeaker - can't remember which one). If he believes - and I think from my own contacts and from published material that it's the case - that the majority of MPs are profoundly unhappy about Trump speaking in Parliament and that it would likely to be subject to both boycotts and disruption by Members, then in my view he had a duty to say so. There is literally nobody else who can speak for MPs without regard to party lines, Ministerial careers and so on.
The other examples given didn't attract any significant opposition from MPs. Perhaps they should have, and perhaps the row here will help stimulate a genuine debate in Parliament on who Members would really like to have.
He should have kept his trap shut and dealt with it privately.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It is not going to happen.
As many on here have said, we would not be leaving the EU if the other member states had been more accommodating and understanding od the UK's position. The same thing applies with Scotland.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It is not going to happen.
As many on here have said, we would still be in the EU now if the other member states had been more accommodating and understanding od the UK's position. The same thing applies with Scotland.
Agree with every word of that. We must give Scotland alot more rope to govern itself.
The aspect that Cyxlefree doesn't address is the Speaker's role as the representative of the Commons. Nobody disputes that when he, for instance, makes a speech stressing the need to protect backbench MPs against pressure (something I benefited from myself from a Soeaker - can't remember which one). If he believes - and I think from my own contacts and from published material that it's the case - that the majority of MPs are profoundly unhappy about Trump speaking in Parliament and that it would likely to be subject to both boycotts and disruption by Members, then in my view he had a duty to say so. There is literally nobody else who can speak for MPs without regard to party lines, Ministerial careers and so on.
The other examples given didn't attract any significant opposition from MPs. Perhaps they should have, and perhaps the row here will help stimulate a genuine debate in Parliament on who Members would really like to have.
If that was his intention he could have framed it in terms of many members have said they would have a problem with it and he shared the concerns, and having no eyes to see or ears to hear but that the house directs him, should such an invite request be made he would raise those concerns with the Lord speaker and lord chamberlain. Since a consensus is usually required, he would be sure they would take those concerns very seriously.
He was grandstanding. If the mere point was to prevent trump speaking as MPs as a whole or significant numbers of them would object to that, he could have still alerted the Lord speaker, or he could have framed it as I have above, as reflecting the will of the house but that he would still discuss it with relevant persons.,
Wondering if Trump will go on to emulate Nixon's achievements/"achievements" seems to be hedgebetting to some extent...
I just watched the complete series of "Nixon's the One", with Harry Shearer as Nixon, where they re-enact verbatim extracts from the Nixon Tapes. Given these tapes are nearly half a century old it was remarkable how Nixon's fixations could have come straight from Trump's tweets. Trump is still trying to recapture a golden age that was being mourned fifty years ago. At some point, America, you have to acknowledge - she's never coming back to you...
The series is well worth catching up with (despite Shearer's prosthetics never ceasing to look quite alarmingly weird).
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
On topic, it's a good piece but there are two important points missed.
Firstly, there was no reason to offer a state visit in the first place and, one having been made, no reason for that visit to include an address to parliament (has this offer ever been made or are people tilting at shadows / pre-empting such an offer?). It is right that we treat our allies with respect but that's not the same as offering them everything, immediately.
And secondly, the problem with Trump is not the absolute level of his values and actions regarding free speech, human rights, respect for others and so on. Clearly, they are considerably better than, say, Kuwait's. What is equally important is the direction of travel. We should encourage those who are improving in such areas, even if from a low level and as such, even where serious failings remain. Part of the messes that were made in the Bush adventures was down to a desire to impose liberal democracy on countries that were unfit and unready for such a society. America already has a liberal democracy; its president shouldn't be lauded for testing the limits.
"What is equally important is the direction of travel. " Absolutely. Had Bercow made this point he would have looked far less ridiculous (or had Bercow been less ridiculous he might have made this point).
The aspect that Cyxlefree doesn't address is the Speaker's role as the representative of the Commons. Nobody disputes that when he, for instance, makes a speech stressing the need to protect backbench MPs against pressure (something I benefited from myself from a Soeaker - can't remember which one). If he believes - and I think from my own contacts and from published material that it's the case - that the majority of MPs are profoundly unhappy about Trump speaking in Parliament and that it would likely to be subject to both boycotts and disruption by Members, then in my view he had a duty to say so. There is literally nobody else who can speak for MPs without regard to party lines, Ministerial careers and so on.
The other examples given didn't attract any significant opposition from MPs. Perhaps they should have, and perhaps the row here will help stimulate a genuine debate in Parliament on who Members would really like to have.
If there were a significant (or indeed any) pressure for Trump to be invited to address parliament, that would be different. Do you notice how no news channel I'm aware of has managed to find an MP supporting an invitation?
Bercow is a fantasist and wants to go down in history as a second John Hampden, and has jumped the gun in his excitement - someone has to ask you for ship money before you can refuse to pay it.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It is not going to happen.
As many on here have said, we would not be leaving the EU if the other member states had been more accommodating and understanding od the UK's position. The same thing applies with Scotland.
My worry on that front is I would concede a lot to keep Scotland in the uk. If I had thought it would kill the issue of independence, I would have voted to remain in the eu. But the demise of the union is also down to apathy on the English and other side, and I don't know politically if it is possible to give Scotland enough to quell the demands for independence, when too many are intent on only seeing difference when it is in fact slight. A hard core will never be satisfied, but others perhaps could be, but can enough be offered?
Ed m's idea of a constitutional convention was one of his better ones, for all it might have turned into a quagmire.
There is precious little evidence that the Speaker has misread the mood of the House of Commons. Much of the squawking about him, coming as it does from the usual noisy minority of Bercow-haters, ignores that.
As to the substance of the decision, the matter seems to have been handled ineptly by all concerned from start to date. I'm agog at how badly a relatively simple thing has been dealt with by the government.
You don't think that the stony silence on the government benches in response to his outburst, where an absolute majority of the HoC sits, is good evidence?
No. Conservative MPs who agree with John Bercow were hardly going to be throwing their hats in the air, were they? Enough Conservative MPs have come forward since to make it seem likely that John Bercow spoke for a majority.
MEN claiming that Rebecca Long Bailey is being 'positioned' to take over from Jez.
They really have got no-one of any stature left, have they? I'm sure Mrs Long Bailey will do well in the future, but she's only 37 and has been in Parliament for less then two years.
Mr. kle4, there was a more forthright (ahem) attitude to ends justifying means in classical and medieval times. Livy praised a Roman army (in Rome and Italy) for slaughtering a huge number of adult males in a rival city. Likewise when Richard the Lionheart and Saladin were having hardball negotiations outside a city (maybe Acre, I forget).
The Lionheart had won a battle before Saladin arrived and taken a large number of prisoners. However, food and water supplies were low. Saladin was stringing out negotiations to weaken the Crusader army. The Lionheart responded by killing most/all of the prisoners even though he'd promised them their lives if they surrendered (NB Saladin did likewise to prisoners).
Worth also noting that many kings we might consider tyrants today were praised and admired for their vigorous/vicious approach to law and order. And we see with the 'punch a Nazi' idiocy that a lot of people are still quite happy to support violence beyond the law if it's directed at those they consider wrong (ie a moral cause, in their eyes).
Couldn't be an effective, and therefore a good ruler without being strong and probably at least a bit of a bastard. Different times, different necessities. Weakness led to anarchy. Institutions are stronger now, for better and for worse,
An alternative point of view is that she broke the rules of the house. As usual the liberal mind refuses to recognise that what they say now has consequences (and are often forced to delete tweets and twitter accounts when reality bites back).
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned out in droves just as Indy supporters did last time. Will they do the same again? And if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
Of course they will, Union supporters tend to be older and they have higher turnout so whatever the No poll rating you can probably increase it by at least 2 to 3%. Leaving the EU and the Single Market the SNP told us would lead to a Yes landslide, the most interesting thing is that is not happening
It will only take a few percent to switch, and a few percent not to turnout, to permit an Indy win. That is frighteningly manageable. It is a shame we decide these things on a 50%+1 vote basishey are so significant, but that is the way things are so I cannot complain.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Scotland and England are drifting apart
Citation required.
Scotland: 60% Remain England excl London: 45% Remain
Scotland: 1.6% of seats held by Tory MPs England: 60% of seats held by Tory MPs
On topic, it's a good piece but there are two important points missed.
Firstly, there was no reason to offer a state visit in the first place and, one having been made, no reason for that visit to include an address to parliament (has this offer ever been made or are people tilting at shadows / pre-empting such an offer?). It is right that we treat our allies with respect but that's not the same as offering them everything, immediately.
And secondly, the problem with Trump is not the absolute level of his values and actions regarding free speech, human rights, respect for others and so on. Clearly, they are considerably better than, say, Kuwait's. What is equally important is the direction of travel. We should encourage those who are improving in such areas, even if from a low level and as such, even where serious failings remain. Part of the messes that were made in the Bush adventures was down to a desire to impose liberal democracy on countries that were unfit and unready for such a society. America already has a liberal democracy; its president shouldn't be lauded for testing the limits.
"What is equally important is the direction of travel. " Absolutely. Had Bercow made this point he would have looked far less ridiculous (or had Bercow been less ridiculous he might have made this point).
China is going wrong way and yet we invite Xi Jinping
Thank you, Cyclefree, for an excellent piece. There's very little with which anyone could disagree. It's an imperfect world and none of us is perfect.
The question though is to what extent we challenge the imperfections of others - do we have a "moral" duty to raise human rights issues with China even if it costs us lucrative business opportunities ? Indeed, can a "Global Britain" afford to have a moral compass if the cost of speaking out about human rights or the lack of democracy in places like Russia or other parts of the world is a direct economic hit in terms of an unfavourable trade deal or loss of contracts ?
The problem is, the two coherent positions are to challenge everything and nothing. The latter, the Chinese position if you like, simply says "business is business" and how a country conducts its internal political affairs is no one else's concern. If we challenge everyone everywhere, the economic cost could be high and it would seem absurd given our new immigration policy (presumably) to be out there telling the rest of the world to allow their citizens to come and go freely.
Had such things existed in the 1930s, would we have afforded Hitler and Mussolini State visits to the United Kingdom ? I'm pushed to see how we couldn't. We have supped with dictators and tyrants throughout history and in the Cold War, propped up some highly unpleasant characters because of our fear of the equally odious Communist alternative.
The moral high ground can be a beautiful, windswept, lonely place. It's nice for a brief visit but we all want to retire to the lounge bar of the Realpolitik Arms for a hot drink after a while.
MEN claiming that Rebecca Long Bailey is being 'positioned' to take over from Jez.
Wasn't this tipped by Mike or TSE the other day? I certainly remember getting on at about 30/1.
I backed her at 66/1, said she was still available at 33/1.
I felt so smug about backing her at 66/1 then in a game of oneupmanship, a PBer told me he had backed her at 350/1, then another outdid the both of us by informing us he had backed her at over 500/1
MEN claiming that Rebecca Long Bailey is being 'positioned' to take over from Jez.
Cannot see that happening for so many reasons.
It would be hilarious. Nuttall would clean up if such a lightweight was elected.
First off, she would need to get the necessary nominations from MPs. Unless there is a change to the rules on that front (unlikely), she will fall at that point. But even if she gets through, the chances are that she will not be the only candidate from the left and she will have to convince a membership that even last September was around 40% opposed to Corbyn. When Corbyn goes, so do many of the keyboard members who backed him. Then, on top of that, Momentum is split top to bottom and so will not be able to corral the remaining keyboard members in the way it did last time around.
She is worth backing at long odds because it is not impossible that things will fall into place and you should never underestimate the stupidity of the Labour membership, but I would say at anything under 20-1 you would be better advised to keep your money in your pocket.
Infantilisation is definitely a thing. What Bercow has done, if you think about it, is equivalent to announcing he is having a birthday party, with the sole intention of being able to tell someone that he is not being invited to it. How would the situation now differ if he had said absolutely nothing at all about it?
And I think the blame lies largely with the internet. If you take this very site, more than half the posters (and I do not exclude myself) frequently taunt other posters in a way which pre-internet wasn't possible or acceptable. Trump with his tweets has simply taken the infantilisation to a higher level.
Another consequence of the infantilisation is a playground conviction that anyone not in gang A must necessarily be in gang B, and vice versa. Even if I now say that I think Trump is a dangerous arsehat I am pretty sure I am about to be denounced as a Trumper, because the thrust of the post is anti-Bercow and this bit is clearly just a disclaimer tacked on the end.
No, I'm quite happy to agree with you that both are arsehats.
MEN claiming that Rebecca Long Bailey is being 'positioned' to take over from Jez.
Wasn't this tipped by Mike or TSE the other day? I certainly remember getting on at about 30/1.
I backed her at 66/1, said she was still available at 33/1.
I felt so smug about backing her at 66/1 then in a game of oneupmanship, a PBer told me he had backed her at 350/1, then another outdid the both of us by informing us he had backed her at over 500/1
Frankly, 500/1 sounds more like reality. I mean - who? But we are no longer in reality, we have, in the words of the great Ken (when is he going to be knighted??), gone down a rabbit hole.
Mr. kle4, agree entirely on institutions being stronger and that being a critical difference. The Lionheart certainly had his share of bastard behaviour, as well as personal bravery (slight inspiration for a certain character I wrote).
However, the proliferation of legal protections may also be like excessive traffic markings. People stop taking as much responsibility or thinking for themselves when the law or other regulations are dictating or suggesting behaviour. So there's less criticism than perhaps there should be of the likes of the RSPCA. And you have failures in government defended by the individuals citing they ticked all the right boxes and didn't do anything illegal.
Not arguing for a return to private wars and maintenance, of course. Just that the idea more laws make everything better (legislating for headlines) is clearly tosh.
Mr. kle4, there was a more forthright (ahem) attitude to ends justifying means in classical and medieval times. Livy praised a Roman army (in Rome and Italy) for slaughtering a huge number of adult males in a rival city. Likewise when Richard the Lionheart and Saladin were having hardball negotiations outside a city (maybe Acre, I forget).
The Lionheart had won a battle before Saladin arrived and taken a large number of prisoners. However, food and water supplies were low. Saladin was stringing out negotiations to weaken the Crusader army. The Lionheart responded by killing most/all of the prisoners even though he'd promised them their lives if they surrendered (NB Saladin did likewise to prisoners).
Worth also noting that many kings we might consider tyrants today were praised and admired for their vigorous/vicious approach to law and order. And we see with the 'punch a Nazi' idiocy that a lot of people are still quite happy to support violence beyond the law if it's directed at those they consider wrong (ie a moral cause, in their eyes).
Couldn't be an effective, and therefore a good ruler without being strong and probably at least a bit of a bastard. Different times, different necessities. Weakness led to anarchy. Institutions are stronger now, for better and for worse,
Because the poorest members of society were most vulnerable to crime and private war among the Barons, they especially admired a King who cracked down on such things.
Thank you, Cyclefree, for an excellent piece. There's very little with which anyone could disagree. It's an imperfect world and none of us is perfect.
The question though is to what extent we challenge the imperfections of others - do we have a "moral" duty to raise human rights issues with China even if it costs us lucrative business opportunities ? Indeed, can a "Global Britain" afford to have a moral compass if the cost of speaking out about human rights or the lack of democracy in places like Russia or other parts of the world is a direct economic hit in terms of an unfavourable trade deal or loss of contracts ?
The problem is, the two coherent positions are to challenge everything and nothing. The latter, the Chinese position if you like, simply says "business is business" and how a country conducts its internal political affairs is no one else's concern. If we challenge everyone everywhere, the economic cost could be high and it would seem absurd given our new immigration policy (presumably) to be out there telling the rest of the world to allow their citizens to come and go freely.
Had such things existed in the 1930s, would we have afforded Hitler and Mussolini State visits to the United Kingdom ? I'm pushed to see how we couldn't. We have supped with dictators and tyrants throughout history and in the Cold War, propped up some highly unpleasant characters because of our fear of the equally odious Communist alternative.
The moral high ground can be a beautiful, windswept, lonely place. It's nice for a brief visit but we all want to retire to the lounge bar of the Realpolitik Arms for a hot drink after a while.
Can't argue with any of that. A well polished national virtue doesn't pay for an increased social care budget
There is precious little evidence that the Speaker has misread the mood of the House of Commons. Much of the squawking about him, coming as it does from the usual noisy minority of Bercow-haters, ignores that.
As to the substance of the decision, the matter seems to have been handled ineptly by all concerned from start to date. I'm agog at how badly a relatively simple thing has been dealt with by the government.
There is precious little evidence that Trump was going to speak in Parliament, which means the speaker was polishing his virtue rather than responding to a request. Had the government asked, and had the speaker taken soundings and responded in kind that would be entirely reasonable, that is not what happened. The speaker exceeded his powers and caused embarrassment to HMG in relation to our most important ally. Considering your detestation of Trump and your delight at discomfort for the government I am not holding my breath for you to see it this way
The Speaker was asked a question (by Stephen Doughty MP) and he answered it. Neither you nor I know what soundings the Speaker had made before giving his answer.
On the detail, you're wrong on multiple fronts. I'm comfortable with the general principle of offering gewgaws to Donald Trump if that will serve Britain's cause well (and so the specific decision by John Bercow is one I wouldn't have sought if I were an MP). But the execution of this could hardly have been handled worse by the government if it had tried.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
The spin line from the Zoomers this morning is that this polling comes after "no campaigning for Indy since 2014"
Clearly ridiculous. The Ruth Davidson Party has been running a continuous IndyRef2 campaign from the 19th of September. Can't stop banging on about it.
Rebecca Long Bailey? Oh dearie me. Nice to see the Labour party still retains its sense of humour.
The current searching around for a left candidate is beginning to look eerily like the long episode special of The Thick of It, when Tucker sends them all mad jumping on to the bandwagon of one candidate after another.
On topic, it's a good piece but there are two important points missed.
snip.
Agree on the first. Point 5 covers your second point, albeit briefly. We should expect more of a US President. It worries me greatly that Trump's reaction to the courts putting his EO on hold is to attack the judge rather than consulting with lawyers to see how proposed actions could be made to comply with US law and the US Constitution. That is the mark of a spoilt baby lashing out rather than a serious grown up.
Well, sadly it's not as though our lot are immune to that reaction at times.
Obama rubbished judges - let's not apply exceptionalism to Trump here.
"WASHINGTON — It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.
President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer.
President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.
Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., one of the justices in the majority in the decision under attack, shook his head as he heard the president’s summary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and he appeared to mouth the words “not true.”
It was not quite the shouted “You lie!” from Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, at September’s presidential address to a joint session of Congress. But in its way, the breach of decorum on both sides was much starker.
If Scotland’s imminent departure is indeed a certainty, then perhaps Sturgeon should be preparing the ground for a Scottish Central bank and their own currency. They’ll need it to re-join the EU.
Rebecca Long Bailey? Oh dearie me. Nice to see the Labour party still retains its sense of humour.
The current searching around for a left candidate is beginning to look eerily like the long episode special of The Thick of It, when Tucker sends them all mad jumping on to the bandwagon of one candidate after another.
Claire Ballantine anyone?
Lisa Nandy is the only even vaguely Leftie politician that's talked any sense recently. I like the cut of her jib (but haven't done any particular research on her overall positions).
Mr. kle4, that is correct. If not enough people are disadvantaged, just broaden the definition of disadvantage. Hence 'relative poverty'. A perpetual cause for outrage among charities, totally divorced from actual poverty.
I think that the diminished moral standing of charitable works as they professionalise and focus on gouging money with chuggers and churglars is not an especially good turn of events.
To take one example, the behaviour of RSPCA has done a lot to damage its standing in recent years.
They seemed to be an example of an organisation which thinks that because its cause is noble or their motives pure this permits them to do whatever they want in pursuit of their noble objective/pure motives. A very dangerous belief. Not least because others will be misled into not challenging them precisely because they risk being accused of stopping the person/body from doing their noble thing. But the power mad are no less dangerous because they believe they are good.
Isn't that what happened with that kids play lady or whatever the charity was called? Her defence for being incompetent overspending wasters was 'think of the children'.
I cannot stand that type of behaviour. It's one reason why as I've gotten older I've found it harder to enjoy a lot of generic cop dramas as they bathe in that attitude, in the idea if your objective is noble how dare anyone try to stop You doing what want, no matter if there are good reasons, and yet are rarely shown as in the wrong, coming across as hypocrite. Comedy cop shows like Brooklyn nine nine have their characters care more about rule of law and proper procedure!
That my job involves trying to get people to follow proper processes nay have something to do with my increased respect for rules over pure motive.
IIRC - it's the Noble Cause theory where the ends justify the means.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Other BMG polls n this topic have havlarge DK scores, 13 and 15 percent respecrively. So true the true figure would be around 43/44/13 Y/N/DK. Which on a "vote tomorrow" basis would mean the same result again, possibly even a little worse for Yes. The question is will a second Indy re campaign have as a profound effect on DKs as last time.
Mr. F, it was an interesting period, when centralising power and the interests of the common folk coincided heavily, at the expense of the nobility's privilege [and not just them. Bishops and monks often had private wars too].
Can May actually veto a Section 30 order or could it reach the Commons without her consent?
Statutory Instruments, such as are required to make an order under Section 30, are laid under the signature of the minister authorised by the act, in this case the Secretary of State of Scotland (currently David Mundell).
A couple of reasons why Donald Trump's proposed visit and address to Parliament is different to the others mentioned:
1) The others could be relied upon to respect the dignity of the occasion.
2) Trump is second only to Putin in his negative ratings amongst the British public (Would we ever invite Putin to address parliament?)
Personally I am looking forward to the visit. It is going to be a festival of protest. It is going to be Hyuuuge.
We have certainly given Putin a State Visit
Wasn't that back in 2003? At that point, Putin had yet to really set his country on the road it's down today. It was still the remnants of Yeltsin's chaotic but somewhat more democratic state. Plus it was at a time when there was a *slim* chance of normalising relations with Russia.
Xi Jingping's state visit is a fair example of hypocrisy over the issue though. The sudden embracing of him by some as an alternative to Trump - at Davos for example, is strange.
There is precious little evidence that the Speaker has misread the mood of the House of Commons. Much of the squawking about him, coming as it does from the usual noisy minority of Bercow-haters, ignores that.
As to the substance of the decision, the matter seems to have been handled ineptly by all concerned from start to date. I'm agog at how badly a relatively simple thing has been dealt with by the government.
There is precious little evidence that Trump was going to speak in Parliament, which means the speaker was polishing his virtue rather than responding to a request. Had the government asked, and had the speaker taken soundings and responded in kind that would be entirely reasonable, that is not what happened. The speaker exceeded his powers and caused embarrassment to HMG in relation to our most important ally. Considering your detestation of Trump and your delight at discomfort for the government I am not holding my breath for you to see it this way
The Speaker was asked a question (by Stephen Doughty MP) and he answered it. Neither you nor I know what soundings the Speaker had made before giving his answer.
On the detail, you're wrong on multiple fronts. I'm comfortable with the general principle of offering gewgaws to Donald Trump if that will serve Britain's cause well (and so the specific decision by John Bercow is one I wouldn't have sought if I were an MP). But the execution of this could hardly have been handled worse by the government if it had tried.
The speaker should have replied as the Lord Speaker correctly did, that he had received no such representation, and until such times retained an open mind.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Then May should give Sturgeon her referendum. Let's see if she does.
Why should she? Not one poll is currently showing a Yes vote so there is clearly no change from the last No vote and of course with her own party now taking votes from the SNP as well as Scottish Labour she has little to fear from Sturgeon
There is precious little evidence that the Speaker has misread the mood of the House of Commons. Much of the squawking about him, coming as it does from the usual noisy minority of Bercow-haters, ignores that.
As to the substance of the decision, the matter seems to have been handled ineptly by all concerned from start to date. I'm agog at how badly a relatively simple thing has been dealt with by the government.
There is precious little evidence that Trump was going to speak in Parliament, which means the speaker was polishing his virtue rather than responding to a request. Had the government asked, and had the speaker taken soundings and responded in kind that would be entirely reasonable, that is not what happened. The speaker exceeded his powers and caused embarrassment to HMG in relation to our most important ally. Considering your detestation of Trump and your delight at discomfort for the government I am not holding my breath for you to see it this way
The Speaker was asked a question (by Stephen Doughty MP) and he answered it. Neither you nor I know what soundings the Speaker had made before giving his answer.
On the detail, you're wrong on multiple fronts. I'm comfortable with the general principle of offering gewgaws to Donald Trump if that will serve Britain's cause well (and so the specific decision by John Bercow is one I wouldn't have sought if I were an MP). But the execution of this could hardly have been handled worse by the government if it had tried.
The speaker should have replied as the Lord Speaker correctly did, that he had received no such representation, and until such times retained an open mind.
He obviously did not retain an open mind, so that would have been a lie.
An English Parliament would be the catalyst to the unravelling of the UK.
It is an iron law of politics that every separate institution seeks to obtain more power and influence for itself. An English Parliament with responsibility for domestic policy would clearly be the the most significant legislature in the nation, and the actions of the English ministry would dominate political reporting. In time, that body would inevitably seek additional powers, eventually leaving Westminster as a talking shop with purely theoretical, decorative powers. When the Centre has been hollowed out, all the Home Nations would probably incline to independence.
All of the above happened on fast forward during the breakup of the USSR. It was the attitude of Russia that was crucial; most of the other republics were not desperate for dissolution.
The English must accept that as the hegemonic people, their nationality must be sublimated into that of the broader union. They must console themselves with the fact that with 85% of the population, they will always dominate the affairs of the UK.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourabfore the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
My great worry is turnout. Union supporters turned nd if things have moved a bit closer to the Indys, will the union turnout be enough?
When you start worrying about things like that the game is up. The only way the UK stays together now is through a complete rethink of the constitutional settlement. It involves leaders making big, bold and uncomfortable decisions that will dilute their own power. It i
There was the vow in indyref which was rather more than the EU offered the UK. However given the UK is now leaving the single market Scotland has to choose between the EU and the UK. If it chooses the EU and independence that means border patrols at Berwick and customs duties on Scottish exports to the UK where most Scottish exports go. A majority of UK exports did not go to the EU
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Scotland and England are drifting apart
Citation required.
Scotland: 60% Remain England excl London: 45% Remain
Scotland: 1.6% of seats held by Tory MPs England: 60% of seats held by Tory MPs
Need any more evidence?
The comment was 'drifting apart'
The evidence provided does not support that - indeed the polling suggests the Scots & English aren't as different as the SNP would have their useful idiots believe. The Scots have long been more favourably inclined to Europe than the English. Now the SNP have started taking teeny tiny steps towards higher taxation we'll see how much more 'Social Democratic' the Scots really are.
That is a very good place from which to start for the independence side.
It's hard to see how the UK stays together now given that Scotland and England are drifting so far apart. No doubt May will do exactly what Sturgeon wants and deny the opportunity for a second referendum.
So even despite Brexit and the UK leaving the single market even on the most favourable poll for the Yes side NO would still win and effectively kill off independence for a generation. Of course Yes actually led with yougov a fortnight before the first indyref vote before losing 55% to 45%
Other BMG polls n this topic have havlarge DK scores, 13 and 15 percent respecrively. So true the true figure would be around 43/44/13 Y/N/DK. Which on a "vote tomorrow" basis would mean the same result again, possibly even a little worse for Yes. The question is will a second Indy re campaign have as a profound effect on DKs as last time.
No would still win again now yes the question is really about the margin
On topic, it's a good piece but there are two important points missed.
snip.
Agree on the first. Point 5 covers your second point, albeit briefly. We should expect more of a US President. It worries me greatly that Trump's reaction to the courts putting his EO on hold is to attack the judge rather than consulting with lawyers to see how proposed actions could be made to comply with US law and the US Constitution. That is the mark of a spoilt baby lashing out rather than a serious grown up.
Well, sadly it's not as though our lot are immune to that reaction at times.
Obama rubbished judges - let's not apply exceptionalism to Trump here.
There is a huge difference between criticising a decision - which many presidents have done - and attacking the legitimacy of a judge.
This is what Obama actually said: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong..." That's it.
Can't argue with any of that. A well polished national virtue doesn't pay for an increased social care budget
Thank you for reminding me about yesterday's bizarre events at County Hall, Kingston, where David Hodge took the lead role in his own production of "Much Ado about Nothing", eventually cancelling the referendum he had so proudly trumpeted just a couple of weeks ago and the County Council passed a Budget with a 4.99% Council Tax increase (well above inflation) but no referendum.
Twice during the Budget debate, the session was adjourned to allow Hodge to confer with SCC Chief Executive, David McNulty.
Why did Hodge back down ? Pressure from CCHQ, the likelihood of losing the vote (and some County Council seats on May 4th) or a last-minute promise of more funds from central Government to be announced in the Budget next month ? I suspect Hodge was told Hammond would announce extra funding next month and in that sense, Hodge has won despite yesterday's shenanigans. IF Hammond doesn't deliver or doesn't deliver enough, Hodge will be in the brown and smelly stuff though I suspect he's finished as Conservative Group Leader and will depart after the elections.
Thoughts ? IF Hammond caves in, it will set a dangerous precedent for Councils making all sorts of threats to get extra funds. On an aside, yesterday's events laid bare the frightening lack of transparency and accountability at many local Councils (and it's as true of Labour and LD controlled authorities as Conservative ones). To be an opposition or even backbench Councillor is to be kept out of the decision-making process, deprived of information by Officers too closely tied to the Cabinet or Mayor and left in the dark.
Yesterday, SCC Opposition and backbench Conservative Councillors tried to find out from Hodge where the £30m of "cuts" would come if the referendum was lost but got no answer. I don't know if, like the Civil Service in the event of a LEAVE vote, SCC Officers had been told to do no planning in the event of a referendum defeat but it seems remarkable to imagine no information existed.
There is a culture of secrecy and hidden decision-making within local Government which has been encouraged by the Cabinet structure and Freedom of Information, which disincentivises the taking of Notes and Minutes since they could be released on request.
There is precious little evidence that the Speaker has misread the mood of the House of Commons. Much of the squawking about him, coming as it does from the usual noisy minority of Bercow-haters, ignores that.
As to the substance of the decision, the matter seems to have been handled ineptly by all concerned from start to date. I'm agog at how badly a relatively simple thing has been dealt with by the government.
There is precious little evidence that Trump was going to speak in Parliament, which means the speaker was polishing his virtue rather than responding to a request. Had the government asked, and had the speaker taken soundings and responded in kind that would be entirely reasonable, that is not what happened. The speaker exceeded his powers and caused embarrassment to HMG in relation to our most important ally. Considering your detestation of Trump and your delight at discomfort for the government I am not holding my breath for you to see it this way
The Speaker was asked a question (by Stephen Doughty MP) and he answered it. Neither you nor I know what soundings the Speaker had made before giving his answer.
On the detail, you're wrong on multiple fronts. I'm comfortable with the general principle of offering gewgaws to Donald Trump if that will serve Britain's cause well (and so the specific decision by John Bercow is one I wouldn't have sought if I were an MP). But the execution of this could hardly have been handled worse by the government if it had tried.
The speaker should have replied as the Lord Speaker correctly did, that he had received no such representation, and until such times retained an open mind.
He obviously did not retain an open mind, so that would have been a lie.
It was his job to do to, if he couldn't manage it, perhaps he should step down and let someone else have go ?
American exceptionalism. We expect better of the soi-disent leader of the free world. Different standards apply.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what our relationship with the US would be like if they still had Jim Crow laws.
Give it a couple of years and we might find out.
We don't need that though experiment. We just need to look back at what it was when they did have such laws.
Not really - we had different laws back then and the UK was a very different place.
Racism certainly existed in the UK, but even pre -war, a lot of British people who visited the US were shocked by legally-enforced segregation, and even more so when US forces stationed here in WWII tried to enforce it. Also shocking in its way, were the experiences of some black US visitors to this country, when they discovered they weren't barred from leading hotels.
This is one of the things that truly annoys me about Britons trying to import racism/BLM here.
It's complete nonsense and deliberately divisive race card playing. My Uncle Bart is from Sierra Leone - my five cousins are black and whilst an oddity back in the 70s in Newcastle, no one really commented at all. We all just got on and admired his gold teeth/fish gutting skills.
Frankly, I'm more outraged at what settlers did to the Native Americans than anything else. That was genocide and near deliberate extinction for bison to cut off their food source - imagine if we'd reservations for Jews in Europe in 2017. It's appalling.
I know that Lawyers charge for their time whereas advertisers pay for their's so I can understand where cyclefree is coming from. But did it really require 10 paragraphs to say; "We've invited Mussolini. Why not Hitler?"
On topic, it's a good piece but there are two important points missed.
snip.
Agree on the first. Point 5 covers your second point, albeit briefly. We should expect more of a US President. It worries me greatly that Trump's reaction to the courts putting his EO on hold is to attack the judge rather than consulting with lawyers to see how proposed actions could be made to comply with US law and the US Constitution. That is the mark of a spoilt baby lashing out rather than a serious grown up.
Well, sadly it's not as though our lot are immune to that reaction at times.
Obama rubbished judges - let's not apply exceptionalism to Trump here.
There is a huge difference between criticising a decision - which many presidents have done - and attacking the legitimacy of a judge.
This is what Obama actually said: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong..." That's it.
Omg he basically called the judge a twat. And slapped him. Shocking. What Trump did pales in comparison to what this illegitimate pretender to the presidency did.
Sad, biased reporting from a failing media to even question Trump. Shocking.
There is precious little evidence that the Speaker has misread the mood of the House of Commons. Much of the squawking about him, coming as it does from the usual noisy minority of Bercow-haters, ignores that.
As to the substance of the decision, the matter seems to have been handled ineptly by all concerned from start to date. I'm agog at how badly a relatively simple thing has been dealt with by the government.
May invited him , no problem. It was the idiot Bercow who put a spanner in the works not the Govt. Lord Fowler has put the idiot back in his box hopefully. The sooner this man who has an overblown view of his own importance is silenced, the better. He is a complete hypocrite.
The executive has no right to issue invitations on behalf of the legislature.
Norman Fowler (the Lord Speaker) was very clear that there had been no incoming inquiry about a speech - and hence no invitation issued.
Bercow was grandstanding in a vainglorious way to win some cheap applause. In so doing he potentially created an issue with the leader of our closest ally. He overstepped the mark of his authority, and intervened in a political manner.
Comments
I cannot stand that type of behaviour. It's one reason why as I've gotten older I've found it harder to enjoy a lot of generic cop dramas as they bathe in that attitude, in the idea if your objective is noble how dare anyone try to stop You doing what want, no matter if there are good reasons, and yet are rarely shown as in the wrong, coming across as hypocrite. Comedy cop shows like Brooklyn nine nine have their characters care more about rule of law and proper procedure!
That my job involves trying to get people to follow proper processes nay have something to do with my increased respect for rules over pure motive.
"Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself. As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, ‘John Bercow consistently voted for the Iraq War’.
On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn’t been made, even though it hadn’t. On the same day he voted for the government to ‘use all means necessary’ to ensure the destruction of Iraq’s WMD.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/john-bercow-consistently-voted-iraq-war-hes-colossal-hypocrite-not-hero/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/elizabeth-warren-mitch-mcconnell-silence-senate-debate-jeff-sessions-nomination
The US is so badly split that neither side seems able to listen to the other.
Yesterday's Brexit vote debate:
https://twitter.com/AKAJAMES7/status/829006945860325378
Scotland and England are drifting apart - just as England drifted away from the EU. There will have to be a complete rethink of the UK constitutional settlement or the UK will cease to exist. Given our political leaders are so utterly mediocre, I am betting on the latter.
And I think the blame lies largely with the internet. If you take this very site, more than half the posters (and I do not exclude myself) frequently taunt other posters in a way which pre-internet wasn't possible or acceptable. Trump with his tweets has simply taken the infantilisation to a higher level.
Another consequence of the infantilisation is a playground conviction that anyone not in gang A must necessarily be in gang B, and vice versa. Even if I now say that I think Trump is a dangerous arsehat I am pretty sure I am about to be denounced as a Trumper, because the thrust of the post is anti-Bercow and this bit is clearly just a disclaimer tacked on the end.
The other examples given didn't attract any significant opposition from MPs. Perhaps they should have, and perhaps the row here will help stimulate a genuine debate in Parliament on who Members would really like to have.
The ability to turn a blind eye is very widespread and, arguably, necessary, in international relations.
The Lionheart had won a battle before Saladin arrived and taken a large number of prisoners. However, food and water supplies were low. Saladin was stringing out negotiations to weaken the Crusader army. The Lionheart responded by killing most/all of the prisoners even though he'd promised them their lives if they surrendered (NB Saladin did likewise to prisoners).
Worth also noting that many kings we might consider tyrants today were praised and admired for their vigorous/vicious approach to law and order. And we see with the 'punch a Nazi' idiocy that a lot of people are still quite happy to support violence beyond the law if it's directed at those they consider wrong (ie a moral cause, in their eyes).
I too wish we had the US's protections for free speech and peaceful protest. Worrying that Trump is reported as saying that he wants to have something like British libel laws in the US. They are an abomination. With luck, that proposal will go nowhere.
As many on here have said, we would not be leaving the EU if the other member states had been more accommodating and understanding od the UK's position. The same thing applies with Scotland.
He was grandstanding. If the mere point was to prevent trump speaking as MPs as a whole or significant numbers of them would object to that, he could have still alerted the Lord speaker, or he could have framed it as I have above, as reflecting the will of the house but that he would still discuss it with relevant persons.,
On the subject of Nixon, Hunter S Thompson's famous obituary written for Rolling Stone is worth revisiting. Decide for yourself if there are any Trump parallels...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/
Nicola Sturgeon has launched a "new conversation" on independence as she urged Scotland to "control its own destiny".
In a speech in Stirling, Ms Sturgeon acknowledged that choosing independence would be a "big decision" in the wake of the Brexit vote...
All of the party's MPs and MSPs have been instructed to hold town hall meetings,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37250448
Alternative Facts R Us....
Absolutely.
Had Bercow made this point he would have looked far less ridiculous (or had Bercow been less ridiculous he might have made this point).
Bercow is a fantasist and wants to go down in history as a second John Hampden, and has jumped the gun in his excitement - someone has to ask you for ship money before you can refuse to pay it.
Ed m's idea of a constitutional convention was one of his better ones, for all it might have turned into a quagmire.
Good day all.
But the political class refuse to countenance the former, and it's a prerequisite for the latter.
England excl London: 45% Remain
Scotland: 1.6% of seats held by Tory MPs
England: 60% of seats held by Tory MPs
Need any more evidence?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35714031
Thank you, Cyclefree, for an excellent piece. There's very little with which anyone could disagree. It's an imperfect world and none of us is perfect.
The question though is to what extent we challenge the imperfections of others - do we have a "moral" duty to raise human rights issues with China even if it costs us lucrative business opportunities ? Indeed, can a "Global Britain" afford to have a moral compass if the cost of speaking out about human rights or the lack of democracy in places like Russia or other parts of the world is a direct economic hit in terms of an unfavourable trade deal or loss of contracts ?
The problem is, the two coherent positions are to challenge everything and nothing. The latter, the Chinese position if you like, simply says "business is business" and how a country conducts its internal political affairs is no one else's concern. If we challenge everyone everywhere, the economic cost could be high and it would seem absurd given our new immigration policy (presumably) to be out there telling the rest of the world to allow their citizens to come and go freely.
Had such things existed in the 1930s, would we have afforded Hitler and Mussolini State visits to the United Kingdom ? I'm pushed to see how we couldn't. We have supped with dictators and tyrants throughout history and in the Cold War, propped up some highly unpleasant characters because of our fear of the equally odious Communist alternative.
The moral high ground can be a beautiful, windswept, lonely place. It's nice for a brief visit but we all want to retire to the lounge bar of the Realpolitik Arms for a hot drink after a while.
I felt so smug about backing her at 66/1 then in a game of oneupmanship, a PBer told me he had backed her at 350/1, then another outdid the both of us by informing us he had backed her at over 500/1
She is worth backing at long odds because it is not impossible that things will fall into place and you should never underestimate the stupidity of the Labour membership, but I would say at anything under 20-1 you would be better advised to keep your money in your pocket.
The UK would vote 51/49 to Leave, and perhaps surprisingly, 42% of French voters would Leave. There's better news for the EU in Scandinavia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWuc18xISwI
However, the proliferation of legal protections may also be like excessive traffic markings. People stop taking as much responsibility or thinking for themselves when the law or other regulations are dictating or suggesting behaviour. So there's less criticism than perhaps there should be of the likes of the RSPCA. And you have failures in government defended by the individuals citing they ticked all the right boxes and didn't do anything illegal.
Not arguing for a return to private wars and maintenance, of course. Just that the idea more laws make everything better (legislating for headlines) is clearly tosh.
Ahem, rambling a bit.
On the detail, you're wrong on multiple fronts. I'm comfortable with the general principle of offering gewgaws to Donald Trump if that will serve Britain's cause well (and so the specific decision by John Bercow is one I wouldn't have sought if I were an MP). But the execution of this could hardly have been handled worse by the government if it had tried.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/02/07/quiz-do-know-teen-internet-slang/
Claire Ballantine anyone?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html
"WASHINGTON — It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices’ faces.
President George W. Bush, for instance, did not hesitate to criticize a 2008 ruling recognizing the rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — but he did it at a news conference in Rome. President Richard M. Nixon said he was disappointed with a 1974 decision ordering him to turn over the tapes that would help end his presidency — in a statement read by his lawyer.
President Obama’s approach at the State of the Union address Wednesday night was more personal, and he seemed a little self-conscious about it.
Before he began his attack on a Supreme Court decision not yet a week old, Mr. Obama added a few words that had not been in the prepared text. The new preface — “with all due deference to separation of powers” — seemed to acknowledge that he was aiming unusual rhetorical fire at several Supreme Court justices sitting right in front of him.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., one of the justices in the majority in the decision under attack, shook his head as he heard the president’s summary of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and he appeared to mouth the words “not true.”
It was not quite the shouted “You lie!” from Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, at September’s presidential address to a joint session of Congress. But in its way, the breach of decorum on both sides was much starker.
Xi Jingping's state visit is a fair example of hypocrisy over the issue though. The sudden embracing of him by some as an alternative to Trump - at Davos for example, is strange.
North Korea, of course, having concentration camps.
It is an iron law of politics that every separate institution seeks to obtain more power and influence for itself. An English Parliament with responsibility for domestic policy would clearly be the the most significant legislature in the nation, and the actions of the English ministry would dominate political reporting. In time, that body would inevitably seek additional powers, eventually leaving Westminster as a talking shop with purely theoretical, decorative powers. When the Centre has been hollowed out, all the Home Nations would probably incline to independence.
All of the above happened on fast forward during the breakup of the USSR. It was the attitude of Russia that was crucial; most of the other republics were not desperate for dissolution.
The English must accept that as the hegemonic people, their nationality must be sublimated into that of the broader union. They must console themselves with the fact that with 85% of the population, they will always dominate the affairs of the UK.
The evidence provided does not support that - indeed the polling suggests the Scots & English aren't as different as the SNP would have their useful idiots believe. The Scots have long been more favourably inclined to Europe than the English. Now the SNP have started taking teeny tiny steps towards higher taxation we'll see how much more 'Social Democratic' the Scots really are.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/two-different-countries-scottish-and-english-attitudes-to-equality-and-europe/
There is a huge difference between criticising a decision - which many presidents have done - and attacking the legitimacy of a judge.
This is what Obama actually said:
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong..."
That's it.
Twice during the Budget debate, the session was adjourned to allow Hodge to confer with SCC Chief Executive, David McNulty.
Why did Hodge back down ? Pressure from CCHQ, the likelihood of losing the vote (and some County Council seats on May 4th) or a last-minute promise of more funds from central Government to be announced in the Budget next month ? I suspect Hodge was told Hammond would announce extra funding next month and in that sense, Hodge has won despite yesterday's shenanigans. IF Hammond doesn't deliver or doesn't deliver enough, Hodge will be in the brown and smelly stuff though I suspect he's finished as Conservative Group Leader and will depart after the elections.
Thoughts ? IF Hammond caves in, it will set a dangerous precedent for Councils making all sorts of threats to get extra funds. On an aside, yesterday's events laid bare the frightening lack of transparency and accountability at many local Councils (and it's as true of Labour and LD controlled authorities as Conservative ones). To be an opposition or even backbench Councillor is to be kept out of the decision-making process, deprived of information by Officers too closely tied to the Cabinet or Mayor and left in the dark.
Yesterday, SCC Opposition and backbench Conservative Councillors tried to find out from Hodge where the £30m of "cuts" would come if the referendum was lost but got no answer. I don't know if, like the Civil Service in the event of a LEAVE vote, SCC Officers had been told to do no planning in the event of a referendum defeat but it seems remarkable to imagine no information existed.
There is a culture of secrecy and hidden decision-making within local Government which has been encouraged by the Cabinet structure and Freedom of Information, which disincentivises the taking of Notes and Minutes since they could be released on request.
https://twitter.com/donaeldunready
It's complete nonsense and deliberately divisive race card playing. My Uncle Bart is from Sierra Leone - my five cousins are black and whilst an oddity back in the 70s in Newcastle, no one really commented at all. We all just got on and admired his gold teeth/fish gutting skills.
Frankly, I'm more outraged at what settlers did to the Native Americans than anything else. That was genocide and near deliberate extinction for bison to cut off their food source - imagine if we'd reservations for Jews in Europe in 2017. It's appalling.
Does Jeremy sack one of his closest colleagues, or does he make himself look even weaker in his post by not sacking her?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/07/jeremy-corbyn-may-forced-sack-diane-abbott-brexit-vote/
"We've invited Mussolini. Why not Hitler?"
Sad, biased reporting from a failing media to even question Trump. Shocking.
Bercow was grandstanding in a vainglorious way to win some cheap applause. In so doing he potentially created an issue with the leader of our closest ally. He overstepped the mark of his authority, and intervened in a political manner.