No need to forecast this - After our No Deal Brexit we’ll be entirely dependent on the French to keep UK freight moving in and out of Calais, entirely dependent on the Spanish to keep the Gibraltar border functioning and entirely dependent on Ireland to keep the NI border flowing. We’re taking back control.
On the diabetes thing and insulin - Danes will get in their cars and bring it over personally if their is any kind of risk to the supply chain - Denmark will not under any circumstances constrain deliveries of insulin to the UK - any civil servant working on Yellowhammer who doesn't understand this is a scaremongering idiot. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Do they have some magic way of avoiding the probable channel ports bottleneck?
"For our personal consumption. We are visiting your Cadbury's World...."
The problem is not just the physical bottleneck at the customs but how do you ensure that the insulin being imported is of good quality. A Chinese supplier of poor quality insulin can supply it into Europe if it declares the product is not for use in the EC. If then his insulin is brought to the border of the UK how do you distinguish between the cheap Chinese product and the good quality Danish product? Is this the responsibility of an untrained customs official. Do we put the few remaining MHRA staff who have not already moved to Netherlands on the border and if so whose is sorting out setting up new regulations.
There are serious management issues with a large number of big decisions needed to be made fast and a lack of trained people to make the decisions. Most of the industry will have no incentive to take risks. Much easier for the Danes to sell to Germany and wait for things to clear in the UK than risk having their product rejected and taking a loss.
Note I am not a doctor of philosophy but I have built up a good sized UK owned medical device company from scratch. I may not be an expert on everything like some on this board but this is my specialist subject which I live and breathe every day.
I don't do too much pharma work at the moment so I am a bit out of date on the details, but my guess is that what would happen would be we'd have to waive some of the regulations to get the medical supplies through so nobody would actually die.
But that's going to be a really really expensive move. The pharma ecosystem is really complicated and once you let the guard down for a couple of months it's going to take years to get it back into order again. And in the meantime our competitors around the world will be cheerfully taking advantage. We won't be burying diabetics but we'll certainly be killing off plenty of well paid jobs for years or even decades to come.
I know the situation in Florida is outrageous, but if your claim turns out to be true across the nation then democracy in the USA is dead.
I wouldn't go that far, but the fact that "voter suppression" is now a thing, not a conspiracy theory but a recognised campaign tactic (deliberate use of social media and extreme requirements for registration to discourage opponents from bothering) is pretty significant.
We are starting to see it over here too IMO.
Voter suppression is not a new 'thing' in America. The most notorious examples come from the Jim Crow laws but there are plenty of other methods too. I'd agree with the inference that voter suppression tactics are being increasingly used though - which is itself a sign of a deeply divided society that doesn't trust the other side to act as legitimate opponents within the system.
I'd be interested in your evidence for it being a thing here though?
An election still looks likely to me. Whether called by Boris pre-emptively, or whether triggered by a VONC.
The key battle fronts are:
Conservative / Lib Dem Labour / Conservative SNP / Other
Currently, I’d expect the Cons to pick up 15 from Labour and lose 25 to the Lib Dems.
I’d expect SNP to gain 10, let’s say 5 from Cons and 5 from Labour.
Therefore, a reasonably likely scenario to me is something like (rounded):
Con 300 Labour 240 Lib Dem 40 SNP 45
I have long assumed that the next parliament will be a Labour minority government with LDs and SNP providing confidence and supply.
Led by Corbyn? What is the price of SNP and LD support for a Corbyn govt? Would it even have the votes for a 2nd ref? Scottish indy ref possibly needed which long term is a disaster for the left in England. What agenda could it have? Would Corbyn be willing to have his hands tied behind his back on his socialist pledges simply to keep the Tories out.
I think such a government would be very tricky to keep together and given your numbers there would be a second election within a couple of months.
An election still looks likely to me. Whether called by Boris pre-emptively, or whether triggered by a VONC.
The key battle fronts are:
Conservative / Lib Dem Labour / Conservative SNP / Other
Currently, I’d expect the Cons to pick up 15 from Labour and lose 25 to the Lib Dems.
I’d expect SNP to gain 10, let’s say 5 from Cons and 5 from Labour.
Therefore, a reasonably likely scenario to me is something like (rounded):
Con 300 Labour 240 Lib Dem 40 SNP 45
I have long assumed that the next parliament will be a Labour minority government with LDs and SNP providing confidence and supply.
What does everyone think the lowest number of seats Jez can have is and become PM with ?
I reckon 220.
It depends on the relative success of LD and SNP, but yes 220 is probably a floor under which his chances become exponentially harder.
If SNP take most / all of the Tory Scottish Seats, and LDs are taking many SW / Eastern seats in Devon and bits of Herts, I can definitely see a Lab / SNP / LD deal. I do find it interesting that for some Corbyn is more unacceptable than Johnson. Corbyn's manifesto is more left wing than the UK has been for a while, sure, but it is no more radical than Scandinavian style social democratic capitalism. Whereas Johnson looks set to literally break everything in pursuit of Brexit.
I don’t want to be seen as part of project fear but just to explain that there are good reasons why out industry is so paranoid about regulations. We never just wing it.
@148grss violence in the streets will just lead to Tory majorities. Brits do not like violence.
Correct. And it's simply a bad thing in itself, irrespective of electoral consequences. We should collectively decide what sort of statements are so inflammatory that they need to be illegal (e.g. "Let's kill all the (ethnic group)"), and defeat any other repellent sentiments by argument, not fists.
In general, I've always found that one can win arguments simply by having a more reasonable tone than opponents. People react against both violence and violent expression of feelings. 1930s Germany shows the dangers of meeting violent hatred with violent hatred.
Jezza is giving an election speech, and not a single post so far...
Who?
Oh. Him.
No point in posting about that sort of empty nonsense.
I mean, reading the speech it seems quite good. And as was noticed at the last GE, once media rules are enforced and they give equal time to Labour, people do seem to like what they hear.
I'm almost certainly voting LD because they're the only ones who can beat the Tories where I am, but this speech is about right to make some disaffected Greens / soft LDs / leave Labour voters think this could still be a Labour party they should vote for. And if he does prevent a No Deal Brexit, his credentials on that issue get a lot better (the main reason the LDs refuse to prop him up as PM, imho, because they know it will be hard to attack him as a hard leaver if he just prevented a hard leave).
Jezza is giving an election speech, and not a single post so far...
Who?
Oh. Him.
No point in posting about that sort of empty nonsense.
I mean, reading the speech it seems quite good. And as was noticed at the last GE, once media rules are enforced and they give equal time to Labour, people do seem to like what they hear.
I'm almost certainly voting LD because they're the only ones who can beat the Tories where I am, but this speech is about right to make some disaffected Greens / soft LDs / leave Labour voters think this could still be a Labour party they should vote for. And if he does prevent a No Deal Brexit, his credentials on that issue get a lot better (the main reason the LDs refuse to prop him up as PM, imho, because they know it will be hard to attack him as a hard leaver if he just prevented a hard leave).
The LDs are not refusing to do anything. Even with LD support Corbyn cannot be PM.
I don’t want to be seen as part of project fear but just to explain that there are good reasons why out industry is so paranoid about regulations. We never just wing it.
Can't read that one here:
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
This speech shows why Corbyn and his supporters have one strategic aim and one only - force an election - and are prepared to countenance absolutely anything to get there. It's a rerun of his 2017 campaign and IMO, as someone from the centre/centre-right, it does have an impact and will likely shore up the traditional heartlands vote and improve his ratings/polling during any campaign.
What I think will still prevent it making as much a difference as 2017, is Corbyn himself. That brief lustre has gone and won't return.
First Meaningful Vote: Aye 202 / Nay 432 - Majority against 230 Second Meaningful Vote: Aye 242 / Nay 391 - Majority against 149 Vote on rejecting No Deal: Aye 321 / Nay 278 - Majority 43 Third Meaningful Vote: Aye 286 / Nay 344 - Majority against 58
No Deal beat the Deal even when May was in charge and three line whipping in favour of the Deal! .
Is this right? 278 voted against No Deal and 286 voted for the WA at MV3 ?
The point is there have been some majorities - against the WA, against No Deal, in favour of the WA with the backstop removed but two are negatives and one fanciful given the EU's unwillingness to budge on the backstop.
Perhaps, as some of Boris's acolytes have opined, the removal of the backstop will enable the WA to pass but what would be the political impact of trying to shaft the DUP so obviously? IF Boris can engineer a Conservative majority to bypass the DUP and then get the WA through - that's the plan.
@148grss violence in the streets will just lead to Tory majorities. Brits do not like violence.
1930s Germany shows the dangers of meeting violent hatred with violent hatred.
What does this mean, Nick?
It doesn't mean anything (well, it does but it doesn't mean anything within its own reference-points).
Disappointing Godwin from Nick, to be honest. There are plenty of other examples of political violence being used on both sides of a divide and they don't all lead to total war and genocide.
@148grss violence in the streets will just lead to Tory majorities. Brits do not like violence.
Correct. And it's simply a bad thing in itself, irrespective of electoral consequences. We should collectively decide what sort of statements are so inflammatory that they need to be illegal (e.g. "Let's kill all the (ethnic group)"), and defeat any other repellent sentiments by argument, not fists.
In general, I've always found that one can win arguments simply by having a more reasonable tone than opponents. People react against both violence and violent expression of feelings. 1930s Germany shows the dangers of meeting violent hatred with violent hatred.
The far right understand how these tactics work. They understand that democratic societies and liberal elites fetishise free speech and tolerance etc. and use it to their advantage. That is why far right activists love to claim they are being shut down, and how their free speech is being infringed when they are the minority, and the moment they get any power they immediately take that privilege away from everyone. They weaponise any virtue of liberal democracy and turn it against itself.
Street movements against the far right work. Richard Spencer does fewer rallies and less TV because he disliked being punched in the face and was frightened. Far right politicians are less macho when covered in milkshake.
Like, when should there be mass resistance against such people? When they hold rallies where they shout about the need to exterminate the Other? When the people who hold those rallies become local politicians? National politicians? The Opposition? The government?
Or should the populace never resort to self defence, only leaving the monopoly of violence to the state, who often have the same baseline feelings of the far right even if they do it with a veneer of civility. We accept that Windrush was a racist policy. We know the history (and current) issues of racism, classism and homophobia in how people are policed in this country. We know that the government, and many governments before it, have scapegoated immigrants and the poor and the same underclasses that the far right scapegoat. Does that make the status quo "literal nazis", no. But it does mean the status quo is more likely to be structurally sympathetic to them. That's why, historically, wherever far right violence and crime occurs it is dealt with less harshly than leftist crime, or minority crime. That was the history in Europe and Germany in the rise of fascism in the 30s and 40s, it is what we see in the US today, and we see it now. Sure, Tommy Robinson is in jail. But if a black man / muslim man did the same things he has done, he would likely have been in jail sooner, for longer, for harsher charges.
First Meaningful Vote: Aye 202 / Nay 432 - Majority against 230 Second Meaningful Vote: Aye 242 / Nay 391 - Majority against 149 Vote on rejecting No Deal: Aye 321 / Nay 278 - Majority 43 Third Meaningful Vote: Aye 286 / Nay 344 - Majority against 58
No Deal beat the Deal even when May was in charge and three line whipping in favour of the Deal! .
Is this right? 278 voted against No Deal and 286 voted for the WA at MV3 ?
The point is there have been some majorities - against the WA, against No Deal, in favour of the WA with the backstop removed but two are negatives and one fanciful given the EU's unwillingness to budge on the backstop.
Perhaps, as some of Boris's acolytes have opined, the removal of the backstop will enable the WA to pass but what would be the political impact of trying to shaft the DUP so obviously? IF Boris can engineer a Conservative majority to bypass the DUP and then get the WA through - that's the plan.
He'll need a bloody big majority to get it through given the spartans and who knows how those 30 odd Labour MPs that do the hokey kokey on the deal constantly will finally vote at MV attempt 4 or whatever.
Fuck that. Literal nazis are not the same as somewhat obnoxious lefties. Spencer literally calls for the US to become an white ethnostate, his politics is inherently violent. Punching him and his ilk to keep them off the streets is an act of self defence. Beating up a left wing, gay journalist is not that.
That chart is just highly concentrated essence of political smugness.
It is still true both in detail and in its overarching point. Nazis and fascists are a clear danger to our civilisation as we know from history and all measures are appropriate to halt their spread, including confronting them with force - especially if the state is unwilling to do so itself.
Oh just shut up. It is contemptible and dangerous on both sides.
That's nonsense. One side uses violence to intimidate innocent people, the other uses violence to prevent that. Your argument would make the British and the Germans morally equivalent in WW2, and is frankly disgusting.
Dresden? Hamburg? The Bengal Famine?
We did some fairly horrible things!
If the white supremacists had been stopped earlier Dresden and Hamburg wouldn't have happened. The Bengal Famine just tells us that we had our own fair share of white supremacists on our side too. But overall the British were fighting fascism in WW2 and in my view that puts us firmly on the right side. We should never let that poisonous ideology gain a foothold in the West ever again.
Dresden and Hamburg were carpet bombing raids pursued in a total war designed to quickly defeat Nazi Germany. This was several years after they’d comprehensively blitzed our cities too, particularly Coventry and Plymouth, and were firing the latest V1 and V2 rockets directly at our civilian centres.
The Bengal famine was appalling but had administrative incompetence and ignorance at its heart, coupled with Japanese occupation of Burma and the Indian border.
This speech shows why Corbyn and his supporters have one strategic aim and one only - force an election - and are prepared to countenance absolutely anything to get there. It's a rerun of his 2017 campaign and IMO, as someone from the centre/centre-right, it does have an impact and will likely shore up the traditional heartlands vote and improve his ratings/polling during any campaign.
What I think will still prevent it making as much a difference as 2017, is Corbyn himself. That brief lustre has gone and won't return.
Agree. A good speech by Corbyn.
1. The Tories want, above all, to deliver Brexit by Oct 31.
2. The Lib Dems want, above all, to halt Brexit.
3. Labour wants, above all, an election.
The question is whether there is a majority in Parliament for 1 and 3 vs 2 and 3.
First Meaningful Vote: Aye 202 / Nay 432 - Majority against 230 Second Meaningful Vote: Aye 242 / Nay 391 - Majority against 149 Vote on rejecting No Deal: Aye 321 / Nay 278 - Majority 43 Third Meaningful Vote: Aye 286 / Nay 344 - Majority against 58
No Deal beat the Deal even when May was in charge and three line whipping in favour of the Deal! .
Is this right? 278 voted against No Deal and 286 voted for the WA at MV3 ?
The point is there have been some majorities - against the WA, against No Deal, in favour of the WA with the backstop removed but two are negatives and one fanciful given the EU's unwillingness to budge on the backstop.
Perhaps, as some of Boris's acolytes have opined, the removal of the backstop will enable the WA to pass but what would be the political impact of trying to shaft the DUP so obviously? IF Boris can engineer a Conservative majority to bypass the DUP and then get the WA through - that's the plan.
Didn't 278 vote against rejecting No Deal - i.e. for No Deal - whilst 321 voted to reject No Deal?
@148grss violence in the streets will just lead to Tory majorities. Brits do not like violence.
Correct. And it's simply a bad thing in itself, irrespective of electoral consequences. We should collectively decide what sort of statements are so inflammatory that they need to be illegal (e.g. "Let's kill all the (ethnic group)"), and defeat any other repellent sentiments by argument, not fists.
In general, I've always found that one can win arguments simply by having a more reasonable tone than opponents. People react against both violence and violent expression of feelings. 1930s Germany shows the dangers of meeting violent hatred with violent hatred.
Meeting the violence of the blackshirts in 1930s UK with violent resistance seems to have worked ok, and provided your dear leader with some lovely nostalgic moments.
Jezza is giving an election speech, and not a single post so far...
Who?
Oh. Him.
No point in posting about that sort of empty nonsense.
I mean, reading the speech it seems quite good. And as was noticed at the last GE, once media rules are enforced and they give equal time to Labour, people do seem to like what they hear.
I'm almost certainly voting LD because they're the only ones who can beat the Tories where I am, but this speech is about right to make some disaffected Greens / soft LDs / leave Labour voters think this could still be a Labour party they should vote for. And if he does prevent a No Deal Brexit, his credentials on that issue get a lot better (the main reason the LDs refuse to prop him up as PM, imho, because they know it will be hard to attack him as a hard leaver if he just prevented a hard leave).
The LDs are not refusing to do anything. Even with LD support Corbyn cannot be PM.
With LD support alone, sure. But Swinson originally said she wouldn't let Corbyn become PM after a VoNC in this government. Which seems counterproductive to what the LDs want.
Jezza is giving an election speech, and not a single post so far...
Who?
Oh. Him.
No point in posting about that sort of empty nonsense.
I mean, reading the speech it seems quite good. And as was noticed at the last GE, once media rules are enforced and they give equal time to Labour, people do seem to like what they hear.
I'm almost certainly voting LD because they're the only ones who can beat the Tories where I am, but this speech is about right to make some disaffected Greens / soft LDs / leave Labour voters think this could still be a Labour party they should vote for. And if he does prevent a No Deal Brexit, his credentials on that issue get a lot better (the main reason the LDs refuse to prop him up as PM, imho, because they know it will be hard to attack him as a hard leaver if he just prevented a hard leave).
The LDs are not refusing to do anything. Even with LD support Corbyn cannot be PM.
Ahh, but remember that old Lib Dem dictum - "Don't leave it to somebody else - they may be leaving it to you!"
There may be another little huddle of MPs saying "Even with our support, Corbyn cannot be PM because the Lib Dems won't support him."
In general, I've always found that one can win arguments simply by having a more reasonable tone than opponents. People react against both violence and violent expression of feelings. 1930s Germany shows the dangers of meeting violent hatred with violent hatred.
I think that is correct.
The undecided are won over by arguments. persuasively put.
That is why "Bollocks to Brexit" or "Bollocks to Corbyn" (to take two recent LibDem slogans) are poor ideas. They motivate the true believers, but they turn off the undecided.
I don’t want to be seen as part of project fear but just to explain that there are good reasons why out industry is so paranoid about regulations. We never just wing it.
Can't read that one here:
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
An election still looks likely to me. Whether called by Boris pre-emptively, or whether triggered by a VONC.
The key battle fronts are:
Conservative / Lib Dem Labour / Conservative SNP / Other
Currently, I’d expect the Cons to pick up 15 from Labour and lose 25 to the Lib Dems.
I’d expect SNP to gain 10, let’s say 5 from Cons and 5 from Labour.
Therefore, a reasonably likely scenario to me is something like (rounded):
Con 300 Labour 240 Lib Dem 40 SNP 45
I have long assumed that the next parliament will be a Labour minority government with LDs and SNP providing confidence and supply.
The Conservatives are divided, shot out and have lost their USP.
Almost unbelievably they still haven’t painted out a positive Britain 2025 vision (post Brexit) that voters could unite and rally behind and no-one is really sure what it is they’re all about anymore.
They’re relying solely on Not Corbyn and Deliver Brexit, which are ephemeral and transactional as they get. Very few “normal” people are effusive about them so, once either or both of the factors have ceased to apply, I expect them to be heavily defeated.
I am indebted to another fine example of PB's pedantry - perhaps we could rename ourselves PedanticBetting?
The point, which you have completely obscured by your petty quibbling, is 278 voted for No Deal while 286 voted for MV3 while Philip was trying to assert No Deal was more popular than the WA.
I was trying to pedantically point out his error but you pedantically pointed out mine.
Jezza is giving an election speech, and not a single post so far...
Who?
Oh. Him.
No point in posting about that sort of empty nonsense.
I mean, reading the speech it seems quite good. And as was noticed at the last GE, once media rules are enforced and they give equal time to Labour, people do seem to like what they hear.
I'm almost certainly voting LD because they're the only ones who can beat the Tories where I am, but this speech is about right to make some disaffected Greens / soft LDs / leave Labour voters think this could still be a Labour party they should vote for. And if he does prevent a No Deal Brexit, his credentials on that issue get a lot better (the main reason the LDs refuse to prop him up as PM, imho, because they know it will be hard to attack him as a hard leaver if he just prevented a hard leave).
The LDs are not refusing to do anything. Even with LD support Corbyn cannot be PM.
With LD support alone, sure. But Swinson originally said she wouldn't let Corbyn become PM after a VoNC in this government. Which seems counterproductive to what the LDs want.
No it isn’t. Corbyn can’t get a majority so talking to him is pointless.
@148grss violence in the streets will just lead to Tory majorities. Brits do not like violence.
1930s Germany shows the dangers of meeting violent hatred with violent hatred.
What does this mean, Nick?
There was an attempt to defeat the Nazis by street confrontation by communists and allies. I wish they'd succeeded, as the lesser evil, but (a) they didn't and (b) I'm not convinced that the resulting German government if they'd succeeded would have been anything we'd actually look back on with approval.
The reason it's relevant is that street violence against the far right similarly gives an excuse to the far right to escalate their own street violence, and also that it's doubtful whether we want either side to actually win by these tactics. I'm a bit surprised that anyone here disagrees.
@148grss violence in the streets will just lead to Tory majorities. Brits do not like violence.
1930s Germany shows the dangers of meeting violent hatred with violent hatred.
What does this mean, Nick?
It doesn't mean anything (well, it does but it doesn't mean anything within its own reference-points).
Disappointing Godwin from Nick, to be honest. There are plenty of other examples of political violence being used on both sides of a divide and they don't all lead to total war and genocide.
But who were the two sides indulging in violent hatred? Was this in the UK? And what didn't it achieve?
An election still looks likely to me. Whether called by Boris pre-emptively, or whether triggered by a VONC.
The key battle fronts are:
Conservative / Lib Dem Labour / Conservative SNP / Other
Currently, I’d expect the Cons to pick up 15 from Labour and lose 25 to the Lib Dems.
I’d expect SNP to gain 10, let’s say 5 from Cons and 5 from Labour.
Therefore, a reasonably likely scenario to me is something like (rounded):
Con 300 Labour 240 Lib Dem 40 SNP 45
I have long assumed that the next parliament will be a Labour minority government with LDs and SNP providing confidence and supply.
The Conservatives are divided, shot out and have lost their USP.
Almost unbelievably they still haven’t painted out a positive Britain 2025 vision (post Brexit) that voters could unite and rally behind and no-one is really sure what it is they’re all about anymore.
They’re relying solely on Not Corbyn and Deliver Brexit, which are ephemeral and transactional as they get. Very few “normal” people are effusive about them so, once either or both of the factors have ceased to apply, I expect them to be heavily defeated.
I agree there is no vision although I think the power of “not Corbyn” and “deliver Brexit” are more potent than you allow.
I only expect a moderate defeat.
However there seems to a general view in the media on the left and right that any election is Johnson’s to lose which doesn’t make sense to me.
Completely agree about him never having been loved unconditionally. Or perhaps, at all?
This is probably right. I know there is nature and nurture acting on all of us but I believe nurture is the more important. I specifically do not believe in 'bad genes', the notion that people can be born a 'wrong un'.
Therefore, yes, I'm sure that whatever has gone wrong with Donald is not his fault and it could well be rooted in childhood.
Unfortunately these things often set up harmful cycles of behavior and one's thoughts inevitably turn to young Barron. Hopefully he will break the chain and grow up to be a fine upstanding citizen with liberal leanings and a predilection for doing good in the world.
Completely agree about him never having been loved unconditionally. Or perhaps, at all?
This is probably right. I know there is nature and nurture acting on all of us but I believe nurture is the more important. I specifically do not believe in 'bad genes', the notion that people can be born a 'wrong un'.
Therefore, yes, I'm sure that whatever has gone wrong with Donald is not his fault and it could well be rooted in childhood.
Unfortunately these things often set up harmful cycles of behavior and one's thoughts inevitably turn to young Barron. Hopefully he will break the chain and grow up to be a fine upstanding citizen with liberal leanings and a predilection for doing good in the world.
Barron's Mum loves him, I'm sure. The elder Trump boys, though, are very clearly lost causes.
Although I deplore the attack on Owen Jones and don’t believe violence is acceptable in any side...
Why are we so sure that Owen was attacked by political opponents?
It seems far more likely to me it was just a senseless and possibly homophobic late night attack.
I don’t believe Owen is a household name, he is unlikely to be recognised at 3am, and while he undoubtedly subjected to hateful stuff on Twitter, so is everyone else on there.
I mean, reading the speech it seems quite good. And as was noticed at the last GE, once media rules are enforced and they give equal time to Labour, people do seem to like what they hear. I'm almost certainly voting LD because they're the only ones who can beat the Tories where I am, but this speech is about right to make some disaffected Greens / soft LDs / leave Labour voters think this could still be a Labour party they should vote for. And if he does prevent a No Deal Brexit, his credentials on that issue get a lot better (the main reason the LDs refuse to prop him up as PM, imho, because they know it will be hard to attack him as a hard leaver if he just prevented a hard leave).
The LDs are not refusing to do anything. Even with LD support Corbyn cannot be PM.
Ahh, but remember that old Lib Dem dictum - "Don't leave it to somebody else - they may be leaving it to you!"
There may be another little huddle of MPs saying "Even with our support, Corbyn cannot be PM because the Lib Dems won't support him."
What little huddle of MPs might that be? Nat MPs? I think they are also on board already. Labour MPs? They ought to be on board anyway. Tory MPs? Corbyn is their great bogeyman, and their one chance of re-election, so almost certainly not. So your speculation is a bit pointless, I fear, Mr Chris.
There is not enough information there, or elsewhere, to understand what happened. The insulins he was on were essentially out of patent therefore cheaper - a different regimen but fine when used appropriately. And available on the NHS for suitable patients - only a couple of decades ago something like this (twice a day basal plus bolus half an hour before meals, or a mixed insulin requiring diet to be fitted to the insulin, not vice-versa) would be the default regimen here for new diabetics. It was for me soon after 2000.
The reporting which says that the problem is with "human insulin" per se is simplistic.
Suspect a combination of inexperience (he was on a pump and 27 - big change from there), maybe deliberately taking less than required by his diet, not adapting to the new regimen, and insufficient medical advice were the likely causes.
Though more money thrown at it, or a better health setup, would have prevented the death.
Although I deplore the attack on Owen Jones and don’t believe violence is acceptable in any side...
Why are we so sure that Owen was attacked by political opponents?
It seems far more likely to me it was just a senseless and possibly homophobic late night attack.
I don’t believe Owen is a household name, he is unlikely to be recognised at 3am, and while he undoubtedly subjected to hateful stuff on Twitter, so is everyone else on there.
Violence is never acceptable.
But this has allowed Jones to play a double victim card - which in his world is worth extra points. I tend to agree that it is unlikely he was a target because of his 'public profile' - the homophobic motivation is far more likely.
I wish that queer-bashing was something we have left behind us - but we clearly haven't.
Although I deplore the attack on Owen Jones and don’t believe violence is acceptable in any side...
Why are we so sure that Owen was attacked by political opponents?
It seems far more likely to me it was just a senseless and possibly homophobic late night attack.
I don’t believe Owen is a household name, he is unlikely to be recognised at 3am, and while he undoubtedly subjected to hateful stuff on Twitter, so is everyone else on there.
Apparently anti-fascist activists, who had infiltrated some private internet forums, told Jones that various football hooligans were boasting about having filled him in before it went public.
Although I deplore the attack on Owen Jones and don’t believe violence is acceptable in any side...
Why are we so sure that Owen was attacked by political opponents?
It seems far more likely to me it was just a senseless and possibly homophobic late night attack.
I don’t believe Owen is a household name, he is unlikely to be recognised at 3am, and while he undoubtedly subjected to hateful stuff on Twitter, so is everyone else on there.
Apparently anti-fascist activists, who had infiltrated some private internet forums, told Jones that various football hooligans were boasting about having filled him in before it went public.
The government should pass a Smooth and Orderly Brexit Act, making it a criminal offence to report on any problems caused by No Deal. Loose lips sink Brexits.
Yes. Gove et al were tweeting that this document was ancient and implying that it was part of the old regime.
Turns out it was from two weeks ago.
Just lying out right now. All semblance of responsible government has gone as they chase the precious dream to the bitter end at the expense of us all.
First Meaningful Vote: Aye 202 / Nay 432 - Majority against 230 Second Meaningful Vote: Aye 242 / Nay 391 - Majority against 149 Vote on rejecting No Deal: Aye 321 / Nay 278 - Majority 43 Third Meaningful Vote: Aye 286 / Nay 344 - Majority against 58
No Deal beat the Deal even when May was in charge and three line whipping in favour of the Deal! .
Is this right? 278 voted against No Deal and 286 voted for the WA at MV3 ?
The point is there have been some majorities - against the WA, against No Deal, in favour of the WA with the backstop removed but two are negatives and one fanciful given the EU's unwillingness to budge on the backstop.
Perhaps, as some of Boris's acolytes have opined, the removal of the backstop will enable the WA to pass but what would be the political impact of trying to shaft the DUP so obviously? IF Boris can engineer a Conservative majority to bypass the DUP and then get the WA through - that's the plan.
He'll need a bloody big majority to get it through given the spartans and who knows how those 30 odd Labour MPs that do the hokey kokey on the deal constantly will finally vote at MV attempt 4 or whatever.
Shafting the DUP would be one of the great gains of a sane WA. Some sort of WA is the nearest thing there is to having a majority in the commons. That's because it's the nearest deliverable thing to what the majority really want, which is remain, which is still and for now undeliverable for obvious reasons. Sensible remainers (Kenneth Clarke and co) should take the course of getting the softest WA they can and then wait upon events, which might go their way if they are lucky. Rejoining would be fairly simple if there were a long transition and the mood changed.
Narrow minded remainers are increasing the chance of no deal.
On the diabetes thing and insulin - Danes will get in their cars and bring it over personally if their is any kind of risk to the supply chain - Denmark will not under any circumstances constrain deliveries of insulin to the UK - any civil servant working on Yellowhammer who doesn't understand this is a scaremongering idiot. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Do they have some magic way of avoiding the probable channel ports bottleneck?
er ... several. The UK does exist north of Kent. At least I am not sitting here under the sea. :-)
Plus aeroplanes (and carrier pigeons). The freight volume is very small.
Who would have thought the way for Danish freight going over the sea to get to the UK from Denmark is to go more northerly than Kent already?
Its not as if historically the Scandinavians tended to land in York [or Jorvik] anyway, is it?
It would be difficult for the Vikings to land in Yotk, given it is not on the sea.
Jezza is giving an election speech, and not a single post so far...
Who?
Oh. Him.
No point in posting about that sort of empty nonsense.
I mean, reading the speech it seems quite good. And as was noticed at the last GE, once media rules are enforced and they give equal time to Labour, people do seem to like what they hear.
I'm almost certainly voting LD because they're the only ones who can beat the Tories where I am, but this speech is about right to make some disaffected Greens / soft LDs / leave Labour voters think this could still be a Labour party they should vote for. And if he does prevent a No Deal Brexit, his credentials on that issue get a lot better (the main reason the LDs refuse to prop him up as PM, imho, because they know it will be hard to attack him as a hard leaver if he just prevented a hard leave).
The LDs are not refusing to do anything. Even with LD support Corbyn cannot be PM.
With LD support alone, sure. But Swinson originally said she wouldn't let Corbyn become PM after a VoNC in this government. Which seems counterproductive to what the LDs want.
She is thick though and as a Lib Dem she has plenty more principles she can apply if that one does not suit.
The government should pass a Smooth and Orderly Brexit Act, making it a criminal offence to report on any problems caused by No Deal. Loose lips sink Brexits.
There are no queues at Dover.
What you are seeing is fake news. Mocked up by the BBC special effects department.
Although I deplore the attack on Owen Jones and don’t believe violence is acceptable in any side...
Why are we so sure that Owen was attacked by political opponents?
It seems far more likely to me it was just a senseless and possibly homophobic late night attack.
I don’t believe Owen is a household name, he is unlikely to be recognised at 3am, and while he undoubtedly subjected to hateful stuff on Twitter, so is everyone else on there.
Violence is never acceptable.
But this has allowed Jones to play a double victim card - which in his world is worth extra points. I tend to agree that it is unlikely he was a target because of his 'public profile' - the homophobic motivation is far more likely.
I wish that queer-bashing was something we have left behind us - but we clearly haven't.
With the amount of thick knuckle draggers in the UK , it will never be left behind
First Meaningful Vote: Aye 202 / Nay 432 - Majority against 230 Second Meaningful Vote: Aye 242 / Nay 391 - Majority against 149 Vote on rejecting No Deal: Aye 321 / Nay 278 - Majority 43 Third Meaningful Vote: Aye 286 / Nay 344 - Majority against 58
No Deal beat the Deal even when May was in charge and three line whipping in favour of the Deal! .
Is this right? 278 voted against No Deal and 286 voted for the WA at MV3 ?
The point is there have been some majorities - against the WA, against No Deal, in favour of the WA with the backstop removed but two are negatives and one fanciful given the EU's unwillingness to budge on the backstop.
Perhaps, as some of Boris's acolytes have opined, the removal of the backstop will enable the WA to pass but what would be the political impact of trying to shaft the DUP so obviously? IF Boris can engineer a Conservative majority to bypass the DUP and then get the WA through - that's the plan.
He'll need a bloody big majority to get it through given the spartans and who knows how those 30 odd Labour MPs that do the hokey kokey on the deal constantly will finally vote at MV attempt 4 or whatever.
Shafting the DUP would be one of the great gains of a sane WA. Some sort of WA is the nearest thing there is to having a majority in the commons. That's because it's the nearest deliverable thing to what the majority really want, which is remain, which is still and for now undeliverable for obvious reasons. Sensible remainers (Kenneth Clarke and co) should take the course of getting the softest WA they can and then wait upon events, which might go their way if they are lucky. Rejoining would be fairly simple if there were a long transition and the mood changed.
Narrow minded remainers are increasing the chance of no deal.
I do not understand Northern Ireland politics well, but hopefully any election will also see gains for the Alliance, which would also tip the balance toward soft Brexit or Remain.
Although I deplore the attack on Owen Jones and don’t believe violence is acceptable in any side...
Why are we so sure that Owen was attacked by political opponents?
It seems far more likely to me it was just a senseless and possibly homophobic late night attack.
I don’t believe Owen is a household name, he is unlikely to be recognised at 3am, and while he undoubtedly subjected to hateful stuff on Twitter, so is everyone else on there.
He's been targeted and threatened by the far right in the past.
If some of Yellow Hammer stuff happens in No Deal November, surely Cabinet ministers can be done for malfeasance in public office? To have pressed on knowing this is a dereliction of basic care and responsibility.
Boris and Priti lining up another hostage to fortune re ending free movement overnight. The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?
An election still looks likely to me. Whether called by Boris pre-emptively, or whether triggered by a VONC.
The key battle fronts are:
Conservative / Lib Dem Labour / Conservative SNP / Other
Currently, I’d expect the Cons to pick up 15 from Labour and lose 25 to the Lib Dems.
I’d expect SNP to gain 10, let’s say 5 from Cons and 5 from Labour.
Therefore, a reasonably likely scenario to me is something like (rounded):
Con 300 Labour 240 Lib Dem 40 SNP 45
I have long assumed that the next parliament will be a Labour minority government with LDs and SNP providing confidence and supply.
The Conservatives are divided, shot out and have lost their USP.
Almost unbelievably they still haven’t painted out a positive Britain 2025 vision (post Brexit) that voters could unite and rally behind and no-one is really sure what it is they’re all about anymore.
They’re relying solely on Not Corbyn and Deliver Brexit, which are ephemeral and transactional as they get. Very few “normal” people are effusive about them so, once either or both of the factors have ceased to apply, I expect them to be heavily defeated.
For goodness sake, the Tories have already been in Government 9 years, only 3 governments since WW2, the Tory governments of 1951 to 1964 and 1979 to 1997 and the New Labour government of 1997 to 2010 have lasted as long as that. Plus the Tories are already into their 3rd term and only 1 Government since WW2, the Tory government of 1979 to 1997, has got a 4th term.
If the Tories win the next general election and a 4th term it will be down to the need to defeat Corbyn and ensure Brexit is delivered and completed, if David Miliband say was leading Labour and Brexit was not an issue the Tories would almost certainly be heading for defeat
On the diabetes thing and insulin - Danes will get in their cars and bring it over personally if their is any kind of risk to the supply chain - Denmark will not under any circumstances constrain deliveries of insulin to the UK - any civil servant working on Yellowhammer who doesn't understand this is a scaremongering idiot. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
Do they have some magic way of avoiding the probable channel ports bottleneck?
"For our personal consumption. We are visiting your Cadbury's World...."
The problem is not just the physical bottleneck at the customs but how do you ensure that the insulin being imported is of good quality. A Chinese supplier of poor quality insulin can supply it into Europe if it declares the product is not for use in the EC. If then his insulin is brought to the border of the UK how do you distinguish between the cheap Chinese product and the good quality Danish product? Is this the responsibility of an untrained customs official. Do we put the few remaining MHRA staff who have not already moved to Netherlands on the border and if so whose is sorting out setting up new regulations.
There are serious management issues with a large number of big decisions needed to be made fast and a lack of trained people to make the decisions. Most of the industry will have no incentive to take risks. Much easier for the Danes to sell to Germany and wait for things to clear in the UK than risk having their product rejected and taking a loss.
Note I am not a doctor of philosophy but I have built up a good sized UK owned medical device company from scratch. I may not be an expert on everything like some on this board but this is my specialist subject which I live and breathe every day.
Bar codes, lot numbers?
FFS for someone in the industry you talk a lot of crap. Novo and Lilly know how to manage insulin supply and to differentiate from cheap Chinese rubbish.
There is not enough information there, or elsewhere, to understand what happened. The insulins he was on were essentially out of patent therefore cheaper - a different regimen but fine when used appropriately. And available on the NHS for suitable patients - only a couple of decades ago something like this (twice a day basal plus bolus half an hour before meals, or a mixed insulin requiring diet to be fitted to the insulin, not vice-versa) would be the default regimen here for new diabetics. It was for me soon after 2000.
The reporting which says that the problem is with "human insulin" per se is simplistic.
Suspect a combination of inexperience (he was on a pump and 27 - big change from there), maybe deliberately taking less than required by his diet, not adapting to the new regimen, and insufficient medical advice were the likely causes.
Though more money thrown at it, or a better health setup, would have prevented the death.
I agree, there are plenty of folk on twice daily insulins doing well, even older cheaper varieties (though I suspect that over $1000 per month for insulin shocks most of us here). The point is that switching from one insulin to another is not to be taken lightly, because of different pharmacological properties, and needs careful supervision.
Substituting one insulin for another, or indeed similarly for some other drugs like anti-convulsants, is not an adequate response to an interrupted supply.
If some of Yellow Hammer stuff happens in No Deal November, surely Cabinet ministers can be done for malfeasance in public office? To have pressed on knowing this is a dereliction of basic care and responsibility.
But it is the Will of the People. They were only following orders after all.
Or should the populace never resort to self defence, only leaving the monopoly of violence to the state, who often have the same baseline feelings of the far right even if they do it with a veneer of civility.
Once the citizens have voted to disarm themselves they are fucked. Do you think Hong Kong style oppression would be possible in Dallas?
If some of Yellow Hammer stuff happens in No Deal November, surely Cabinet ministers can be done for malfeasance in public office? To have pressed on knowing this is a dereliction of basic care and responsibility.
But it is the Will of the People. They were only following orders after all.
Yep, the bet included a forfeit of eating a shit sandwich, so hold your nose and swallow quickly.
Or should the populace never resort to self defence, only leaving the monopoly of violence to the state, who often have the same baseline feelings of the far right even if they do it with a veneer of civility.
Once the citizens have voted to disarm themselves they are fucked. Do you think Hong Kong style oppression would be possible in Dallas?
I do think Trump is toast. I have to be careful that this is not the wish fathering the thought - since his re-election is something I would find sad and depressing beyond measure - but I have conducted a rigorous internal audit and am satisfied that such is not the case. Four years of this will be enough for America. They will not have the stomach for another four. Whoever the Dems pick out of the leading contenders is the next POTUS, it is just a question of the margin. I think it will be comfortable, recession or no recession, and will be a landslide if there is one. And I hope the header is wrong about the possibility of Trump dodging the bullet by pulling out. That would be sub-optimal. The defeat is necessary to lance the boil and drain the pus.
You are falling into exactly the same trap as many liberal Democrats did in 2004, arrogantly believing anyone could beat George W Bush and ignoring the support he still had in much of middle America
This speech shows why Corbyn and his supporters have one strategic aim and one only - force an election - and are prepared to countenance absolutely anything to get there. It's a rerun of his 2017 campaign and IMO, as someone from the centre/centre-right, it does have an impact and will likely shore up the traditional heartlands vote and improve his ratings/polling during any campaign.
What I think will still prevent it making as much a difference as 2017, is Corbyn himself. That brief lustre has gone and won't return.
I don’t want to be seen as part of project fear but just to explain that there are good reasons why out industry is so paranoid about regulations. We never just wing it.
Can't read that one here:
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
The Baxter heparin scandal was very specific though - quite a lot of Chinese businessmen were executed as a result and supply chain regulations tightened up
Or should the populace never resort to self defence, only leaving the monopoly of violence to the state, who often have the same baseline feelings of the far right even if they do it with a veneer of civility.
Once the citizens have voted to disarm themselves they are fucked. Do you think Hong Kong style oppression would be possible in Dallas?
Yes. The government always has bigger guns.
I think it was Orwell who made the case that rifles and small arms are democratic weapons, that anyone can reasonably aspire to own. Artillery, tanks and warplanes are the province of governments so intrinsically oppressive.
Or should the populace never resort to self defence, only leaving the monopoly of violence to the state, who often have the same baseline feelings of the far right even if they do it with a veneer of civility.
Once the citizens have voted to disarm themselves they are fucked. Do you think Hong Kong style oppression would be possible in Dallas?
It was possible right across the southern states not so long ago.
This speech shows why Corbyn and his supporters have one strategic aim and one only - force an election - and are prepared to countenance absolutely anything to get there. It's a rerun of his 2017 campaign and IMO, as someone from the centre/centre-right, it does have an impact and will likely shore up the traditional heartlands vote and improve his ratings/polling during any campaign.
What I think will still prevent it making as much a difference as 2017, is Corbyn himself. That brief lustre has gone and won't return.
”Even Jesus Christ only had the one resurrection.”
This may be a minority view but I think over the course of a GE campaign Corbyn would knock spots off Johnson. He did so with May, and he is if anything less well equiped than her for such a contest. He's good at bluster and rhetoric, but he's not a details man, and he's lazy.
I suspect this is part of Labour's calculations.
Edit: At Lords yesterday for my first live glimpse of Archer and he looks the real deal.
This speech shows why Corbyn and his supporters have one strategic aim and one only - force an election - and are prepared to countenance absolutely anything to get there. It's a rerun of his 2017 campaign and IMO, as someone from the centre/centre-right, it does have an impact and will likely shore up the traditional heartlands vote and improve his ratings/polling during any campaign.
What I think will still prevent it making as much a difference as 2017, is Corbyn himself. That brief lustre has gone and won't return.
”Even Jesus Christ only had the one resurrection.”
This may be a minority view but I think over the course of a GE campaign Corbyn would knock spots off Johnson. He did so with May, and he is if anything less well equiped than her for such a contest. He's good at bluster and rhetoric, but he's not a details man, and he's lazy.
I suspect this is part of Labour's calculations.
Edit: At Lords yesterday for my first live glimpse of Archer and he looks the real deal.
Jezzas big advantage is he ignores the press and gets mcdonnell to do the media performing
This speech shows why Corbyn and his supporters have one strategic aim and one only - force an election - and are prepared to countenance absolutely anything to get there. It's a rerun of his 2017 campaign and IMO, as someone from the centre/centre-right, it does have an impact and will likely shore up the traditional heartlands vote and improve his ratings/polling during any campaign.
What I think will still prevent it making as much a difference as 2017, is Corbyn himself. That brief lustre has gone and won't return.
”Even Jesus Christ only had the one resurrection.”
This may be a minority view but I think over the course of a GE campaign Corbyn would knock spots off Johnson. He did so with May, and he is if anything less well equiped than her for such a contest. He's good at bluster and rhetoric, but he's not a details man, and he's lazy.
I suspect this is part of Labour's calculations.
Edit: At Lords yesterday for my first live glimpse of Archer and he looks the real deal.
Why does Johnson need details? The whole campaign he will kept away from any in depth interviews, probably wont do a leader debate etc etc.
He will just pop up all over the country baying about 'Will of the people' and Back Boris.
There is not enough information there, or elsewhere, to understand what happened. The insulins he was on were essentially out of patent therefore cheaper - a different regimen but fine when used appropriately. And available on the NHS for suitable patients - only a couple of decades ago something like this (twice a day basal plus bolus half an hour before meals, or a mixed insulin requiring diet to be fitted to the insulin, not vice-versa) would be the default regimen here for new diabetics. It was for me soon after 2000.
The reporting which says that the problem is with "human insulin" per se is simplistic.
Suspect a combination of inexperience (he was on a pump and 27 - big change from there), maybe deliberately taking less than required by his diet, not adapting to the new regimen, and insufficient medical advice were the likely causes.
Though more money thrown at it, or a better health setup, would have prevented the death.
I’d also point out that OTC insulin is * a different product *
He was prescribed insulin analogue - synthetic - and chose to take something else.
Comments
Oh. Him.
No point in posting about that sort of empty nonsense.
I reckon 220.
election in the aid
But that's going to be a really really expensive move. The pharma ecosystem is really complicated and once you let the guard down for a couple of months it's going to take years to get it back into order again. And in the meantime our competitors around the world will be cheerfully taking advantage. We won't be burying diabetics but we'll certainly be killing off plenty of well paid jobs for years or even decades to come.
I'd be interested in your evidence for it being a thing here though?
I think such a government would be very tricky to keep together and given your numbers there would be a second election within a couple of months.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1163398746912296960
In general, I've always found that one can win arguments simply by having a more reasonable tone than opponents. People react against both violence and violent expression of feelings. 1930s Germany shows the dangers of meeting violent hatred with violent hatred.
I'm almost certainly voting LD because they're the only ones who can beat the Tories where I am, but this speech is about right to make some disaffected Greens / soft LDs / leave Labour voters think this could still be a Labour party they should vote for. And if he does prevent a No Deal Brexit, his credentials on that issue get a lot better (the main reason the LDs refuse to prop him up as PM, imho, because they know it will be hard to attack him as a hard leaver if he just prevented a hard leave).
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
What I think will still prevent it making as much a difference as 2017, is Corbyn himself. That brief lustre has gone and won't return.
The point is there have been some majorities - against the WA, against No Deal, in favour of the WA with the backstop removed but two are negatives and one fanciful given the EU's unwillingness to budge on the backstop.
Perhaps, as some of Boris's acolytes have opined, the removal of the backstop will enable the WA to pass but what would be the political impact of trying to shaft the DUP so obviously? IF Boris can engineer a Conservative majority to bypass the DUP and then get the WA through - that's the plan.
Disappointing Godwin from Nick, to be honest. There are plenty of other examples of political violence being used on both sides of a divide and they don't all lead to total war and genocide.
Street movements against the far right work. Richard Spencer does fewer rallies and less TV because he disliked being punched in the face and was frightened. Far right politicians are less macho when covered in milkshake.
Like, when should there be mass resistance against such people? When they hold rallies where they shout about the need to exterminate the Other? When the people who hold those rallies become local politicians? National politicians? The Opposition? The government?
Or should the populace never resort to self defence, only leaving the monopoly of violence to the state, who often have the same baseline feelings of the far right even if they do it with a veneer of civility. We accept that Windrush was a racist policy. We know the history (and current) issues of racism, classism and homophobia in how people are policed in this country. We know that the government, and many governments before it, have scapegoated immigrants and the poor and the same underclasses that the far right scapegoat. Does that make the status quo "literal nazis", no. But it does mean the status quo is more likely to be structurally sympathetic to them. That's why, historically, wherever far right violence and crime occurs it is dealt with less harshly than leftist crime, or minority crime. That was the history in Europe and Germany in the rise of fascism in the 30s and 40s, it is what we see in the US today, and we see it now. Sure, Tommy Robinson is in jail. But if a black man / muslim man did the same things he has done, he would likely have been in jail sooner, for longer, for harsher charges.
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/23/domestic-terrorism-fbi-prosecutions/
The Bengal famine was appalling but had administrative incompetence and ignorance at its heart, coupled with Japanese occupation of Burma and the Indian border.
It was not pursued as a matter of policy.
1. The Tories want, above all, to deliver Brexit by Oct 31.
2. The Lib Dems want, above all, to halt Brexit.
3. Labour wants, above all, an election.
The question is whether there is a majority in Parliament for 1 and 3 vs 2 and 3.
There may be another little huddle of MPs saying "Even with our support, Corbyn cannot be PM because the Lib Dems won't support him."
The undecided are won over by arguments. persuasively put.
That is why "Bollocks to Brexit" or "Bollocks to Corbyn" (to take two recent LibDem slogans) are poor ideas. They motivate the true believers, but they turn off the undecided.
This article has similar information
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1163404967761383424
Almost unbelievably they still haven’t painted out a positive Britain 2025 vision (post Brexit) that voters could unite and rally behind and no-one is really sure what it is they’re all about anymore.
They’re relying solely on Not Corbyn and Deliver Brexit, which are ephemeral and transactional as they get. Very few “normal” people are effusive about them so, once either or both of the factors have ceased to apply, I expect them to be heavily defeated.
The point, which you have completely obscured by your petty quibbling, is 278 voted for No Deal while 286 voted for MV3 while Philip was trying to assert No Deal was more popular than the WA.
I was trying to pedantically point out his error but you pedantically pointed out mine.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163064539837022209
The reason it's relevant is that street violence against the far right similarly gives an excuse to the far right to escalate their own street violence, and also that it's doubtful whether we want either side to actually win by these tactics. I'm a bit surprised that anyone here disagrees.
I only expect a moderate defeat.
However there seems to a general view in the media on the left and right that any election is Johnson’s to lose which doesn’t make sense to me.
Therefore, yes, I'm sure that whatever has gone wrong with Donald is not his fault and it could well be rooted in childhood.
Unfortunately these things often set up harmful cycles of behavior and one's thoughts inevitably turn to young Barron. Hopefully he will break the chain and grow up to be a fine upstanding citizen with liberal leanings and a predilection for doing good in the world.
Why are we so sure that Owen was attacked by political opponents?
It seems far more likely to me it was just a senseless and possibly homophobic late night attack.
I don’t believe Owen is a household name, he is unlikely to be recognised at 3am, and while he undoubtedly subjected to hateful stuff on Twitter, so is everyone else on there.
The reporting which says that the problem is with "human insulin" per se is simplistic.
Suspect a combination of inexperience (he was on a pump and 27 - big change from there), maybe deliberately taking less than required by his diet, not adapting to the new regimen, and insufficient medical advice were the likely causes.
Though more money thrown at it, or a better health setup, would have prevented the death.
But this has allowed Jones to play a double victim card - which in his world is worth extra points. I tend to agree that it is unlikely he was a target because of his 'public profile' - the homophobic motivation is far more likely.
I wish that queer-bashing was something we have left behind us - but we clearly haven't.
Also whilst I think the 10-1 lay is reasonable, I vehemently disagreed with this http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/15/after-a-terrible-week-for-the-white-house-trump-drops-to-just-a-61-chance-in-the-wh2020-nomination-betting/ piece betting advice at the time.
Gove et al were tweeting that this document was ancient and implying that it was part of the old regime.
Turns out it was from two weeks ago.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1163353413654065152
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1163360009226506240
I can't remember the last time I turned on the radio
Narrow minded remainers are increasing the chance of no deal.
What you are seeing is fake news. Mocked up by the BBC special effects department.
R4 just harangues its guests and doesnt actually provide much enlightenment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UyNn86X_xM
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1162747497078562817
Searchlight who monitor the far right said there had been online chatter by the far right about the attack hours before it became public.
The deadline for applications for settled status is December. How many trust the Home Office to process the applications in an efficient, orderly, fair and consistent manner? Hands up? How many expect to see landlords, employers and employees tied up in the Courts for months and years?
If the Tories win the next general election and a 4th term it will be down to the need to defeat Corbyn and ensure Brexit is delivered and completed, if David Miliband say was leading Labour and Brexit was not an issue the Tories would almost certainly be heading for defeat
FFS for someone in the industry you talk a lot of crap. Novo and Lilly know how to manage insulin supply and to differentiate from cheap Chinese rubbish.
The reporting which says that the problem is with "human insulin" per se is simplistic.
Suspect a combination of inexperience (he was on a pump and 27 - big change from there), maybe deliberately taking less than required by his diet, not adapting to the new regimen, and insufficient medical advice were the likely causes.
Though more money thrown at it, or a better health setup, would have prevented the death.
I agree, there are plenty of folk on twice daily insulins doing well, even older cheaper varieties (though I suspect that over $1000 per month for insulin shocks most of us here). The point is that switching from one insulin to another is not to be taken lightly, because of different pharmacological properties, and needs careful supervision.
Substituting one insulin for another, or indeed similarly for some other drugs like anti-convulsants, is not an adequate response to an interrupted supply.
I don't anticipate this being a big issue though.
”Even Jesus Christ only had the one resurrection.”
I suspect this is part of Labour's calculations.
Edit: At Lords yesterday for my first live glimpse of Archer and he looks the real deal.
He will just pop up all over the country baying about 'Will of the people' and Back Boris.
The reporting which says that the problem is with "human insulin" per se is simplistic.
Suspect a combination of inexperience (he was on a pump and 27 - big change from there), maybe deliberately taking less than required by his diet, not adapting to the new regimen, and insufficient medical advice were the likely causes.
Though more money thrown at it, or a better health setup, would have prevented the death.
I’d also point out that OTC insulin is * a different product *
He was prescribed insulin analogue - synthetic - and chose to take something else.
There’s a reason why most insulin is synthetic.