The last 24 hours has been a torrid time for labour and in particular Corbyn
Ian Austin and John Woodcock later joined by John Mann openly advocate voting for Boris. Tom Watson walks out leaving moderate labour mps marooned in Corbyn's labour party. Three candidates sacked for anti semitic remarks and Margaret Hodge refusing to endorse Corbyn as leader
The media are full of it and this issue is not going away no matter how much Corbyn supporters try to deflect it to other parties. It is now the narrative for the labour party and something will have to give
No matter the outcome between Boris and the lib dems labour are in a very bad and dark place. They will lose seats and labour mps returned to the HOC who are on the moderate wing will have a choice, support the leader they despise, or join with the lib dems creating a new centre left party, thereby stranding Corbyn and relegating his part of labour into third place behind a revitalised left leaning social democratic party that would enjoy wide support.
Also this election may be morrphing from Brexit into stop Corbyn any cost
Fantasy, maybe but impossible, no
There'll be no large-scale MP defections from Labour. Any of the MPs from the 2017 Parliament who were going to leave have already done so, and their replacements will be loyalists. The remainder will stay in Labour at any cost, because they're fanatically tribal, think it's the only way to keep their jobs, or both.
Corbyn's abysmal ratings will do some damage to Labour, but they should still poll reasonably well. The impact of the antisemitism issue, amongst other things, will be limited because most Labour voters are robots and the bulk of Labour seats are held with large enough majorities to remain safe in any event.
It'll be touch and go whether the Conservatives get a majority, and if they do then the best the English party can do is to let the SNP have their second independence referendum and not try too hard to win it.
Scottish independence converts a thin Tory majority South of the Border into a large one. It's the most effective way to keep us safe from Labour, and should therefore be welcomed.
You are forgetting about EVFEL. At the moment it is the dog that hasn't barked as the Cons are running the UK and had a majority of 103 in England at the last election.
If the Conservatives get a strong majority in this election they should pass some very strong EVFEL changes. They should be rather uncontroversial at the minute but should protect England after future elections from the whims of other nations with their own devolved powers.
Not that the choice is any better in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon: "“If you are sick of the chaos [...] vote SNP to escape Brexit,”
Just imagine the chaos if Scotland finds itself simultaneously leaving the EU as part of the UK, trying to rejoin it as an independent state, and extricating itself from centuries of total economic integration with the UK.
At least we'll have chosen it rather than have had it imposed on us. That would mean a significant amount of 'taking responsibility' as people like you are always encouraging us to do.
Of course the people who said vote for the Union to stay in the EU and to avoid chaos are pretty much a busted flush. The mind boggles at what sort of argument to preserve the UK they'll make second time round.
There is one flaw in your argument - many (possibly a majority) of people in the NE dont particularly consider SNP politicians in Edinburgh as "we".
Conservative 22% Labour 10% Lib Dem 8% SNP 47% Brexit Party 5% Green 8%
YouGov/The Times/Sky 5-6 Nov
Is that a scotland only poll?
That's Kaboom territory.
That is annihilatory LD don't even win Fife NE, Conservatives down to 3 seats level.
NE Fife, not Fife NE!
Lots of issues like that slip in, I've noticed discrepancies with poll cards and such a few times
The comment was slightly tongue in cheek. NE Fife has always felt itself distinct (for which read superior) to the rest of the county, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the old District council of NE Fife was subsumed into the Fife unitary authority. But it is quite a distinct place and very much NE Fife rather than Fife NE.
Is that to do with the St Andrews university donariat?
Well it is very much to do with St Andrews, but I'm not sure I know what a donariat is! NE Fife is basically St Andrews, farming country, and some other small towns and fishing villages, traditionally Liberal and Tory leaning. The rest of Fife was pit villages and industrial towns, very working class and traditionally solid Labour with Communism at the edges. Culturally the two areas were as distinct as it is possible to imagine. The fact that the SNP has won seats in both areas is a testament to their political genius.
Conservative 22% Labour 10% Lib Dem 8% SNP 47% Brexit Party 5% Green 8%
YouGov/The Times/Sky 5-6 Nov
SLDs sub-10%? Don’t believe it. Their supporters are notoriously shy.
SLab 10%? Almost believable. Maybe low teens?
SCon 22%? A bit low. Maybe 25%.
SNP 47%? Maybe, but if the Greens put up lots of candidates, you can knock at least 3 points off that.
Still, to be 40%+ twelve years into Government, in an FPTP election: I’m chuffed.
The distribution of that vote will be what matters. SNP landslides in the west and central belt as SLAB collapses turns SNP marginals into comfortable holds, But doesnt win many seats elsewhere. Meanwhile in the unionist parts of Scotland, the east, NE, borders, Edinburgh etc, the SNP loses votes.
If the Tories win a majority thanks to England and Wales then what path do Scots here see towards an independence referendum?
I'd imagine if the SNP get 50+ seats then it'd be difficult not to recognise that and see a referendum, but I'm biased being a Tory that actually does want a second [and successful] independence referendum.
The Roman Catholic Church will oppose calls for priests to break the seal of the confessional to report admissions of child abuse, a public inquiry was told yesterday.
From the SRA guidance for solicitors:-
“Preventing harm to children or vulnerable adults
There may be circumstances involving children or vulnerable adults where you should consider revealing confidential information to an appropriate authority. This may be where the child or adult in question is the client and they reveal information which indicates they are suffering sexual or other abuse but refuse to allow disclosure of such information.
Similarly there may be situations where the client discloses abuse either by himself or herself or by another adult against a child or vulnerable adult but refuses to allow any disclosure. As noted above, the examples discussed do not allow for disclosure after the event, however you may have reason to be concerned about the risk of future harm.
You are not required by law to disclose this information. You must therefore consider whether the threat to the person’s life or health is sufficiently serious to justify a breach of the duty of confidentiality.”
Beware all organisations (including professions) that where knowledge or information about serious crimes is concerned have a culture that puts loyalty to comrades or clients above disclosure to law enforcement.
The point I am making is that the rule which has so outraged TSE in relation to Catholic priests is the same as the rule which applies to him as a solicitor...
Except that under English law, priest-penitent privilege does not, I think, apply.
@TSE was presenting the idea of confidentiality between a professional and their client (let’s describe the priest-communicant relationship as that for the moment) as something unprecedented which the Catholic Church was asking for itself as some sort of special privilege whereas it is something which is well-known to English law.
Whether it should be extended to priests - and not just Catholic priests but all clergy from all religions - is another matter, of course. But let’s not pretend that this isn’t already an issue in other professions and sectors.
The Roman Catholic Church will oppose calls for priests to break the seal of the confessional to report admissions of child abuse, a public inquiry was told yesterday.
From the SRA guidance for solicitors:-
“Preventing harm to children or vulnerable adults
There may be circumstances involving children or vulnerable adults where you should consider revealing confidential information to an appropriate authority. This may be where the child or adult in question is the client and they reveal information which indicates they are suffering sexual or other abuse but refuse to allow disclosure of such information.
Similarly there may be situations where the client discloses abuse either by himself or herself or by another adult against a child or vulnerable adult but refuses to allow any disclosure. As noted above, the examples discussed do not allow for disclosure after the event, however you may have reason to be concerned about the risk of future harm.
You are not required by law to disclose this information. You must therefore consider whether the threat to the person’s life or health is sufficiently serious to justify a breach of the duty of confidentiality.”
I am no expert on what priests should do but I believe that they cannot give absolution and should tell the person to turn themselves in. They can also do so themselves. The issue is about whether they can be legally required to do do, just as in the case of solicitors. That is a more subtle point.
FWIW I think the issue of child abuse and its cover up is so wrong and has been so damaging to the Church that it ought to make it a requirement that priests becoming aware of such behaviour must report it.
Certainly, in conveyancing matters, when I was starting my career, some solicitors thought it entirely fair to lie to mortgage lenders on behalf of clients. I remember in 1994, I took over the case load of a partner who had died, and faced a number of negligence claims from mortgage lenders. On reading the files, it became clear that the issue was not negligence, but outright fraud. The firm was very lucky that the insurer paid out.
Talking to older insurance brokers, there were those who maintained a similar attitude towards clients who had made probably fraudulent claims. Not so much, these days.
The usual lies would be about client identity (eg a person with a bad credit record would apply for a mortgage in a different name) or about the amount of money changing hands (which would be different to the figure shown on the contract and transfer deed).
Not that the choice is any better in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon: "“If you are sick of the chaos [...] vote SNP to escape Brexit,”
Just imagine the chaos if Scotland finds itself simultaneously leaving the EU as part of the UK, trying to rejoin it as an independent state, and extricating itself from centuries of total economic integration with the UK.
At least we'll have chosen it rather than have had it imposed on us. That would mean a significant amount of 'taking responsibility' as people like you are always encouraging us to do.
Of course the people who said vote for the Union to stay in the EU and to avoid chaos are pretty much a busted flush. The mind boggles at what sort of argument to preserve the UK they'll make second time round.
I would imagine the argument 'you've seen how disastrously difficult it has been leaving the EU, just imagine how much worse it will be leaving the United Kingdom' would get a lot of traction. Certainly it should: Scottish nationalism is based just as much on a romantic fantasy as leaving the EU is.
I know it's an unfashionable view, but I really do think he could come unstuck in Uxbridge whatever the national result.
I said the same on here a while back and was assured that such a travesty could not happen. He has a 5,000 majority but just two years previous he had an 11,000 majority. That is a big drop for 2 years
Sort of.
But in the same time period Boris Johnson's share of the vote went from 50.2% to 50.8%.
The majority didn't fall because of a fall in the Conservative share, it fell because Labour squeezed the other parties shares. If the Conservatives remain above 50% share then the seat won't fall to anybody else and it would take some bizarre swing to have Labour overturn that seat without seeing a Labour General Election victory anyway.
And that just reinforces how much of a failure it is by Labour to have put up a weak candidate such as Milani, rather than get behind a strong independent with the other parties. It is highly likely that some of the other parties votes that were squeezed in 2017 will return to their previous home (and rather more of them than had Labour put up a strong candidate). In these circumstances it is, regrettably, hard to see how Johnson can lose Uxbridge.
The demographics there are changing rapidly just as they did in nearby Harrow. I think Boris will be alright this time but he might need somewhere safer in the long run.
Not that the choice is any better in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon: "“If you are sick of the chaos [...] vote SNP to escape Brexit,”
Just imagine the chaos if Scotland finds itself simultaneously leaving the EU as part of the UK, trying to rejoin it as an independent state, and extricating itself from centuries of total economic integration with the UK.
Plus, if they win IndyRef2 in 2020, there's always the risk of a Unionist backlash at the 2021 Holyrood elections depriving the Nationalists of a majority at Holyrood. That would be fun.
After having done a little bit of canvassing over the last week as a sanity check on the 2017 Tory pledges I am now in a position to say that I think the Conservatives are in some real trouble. People apathetic(I know more than 2017) and some lib dem tory waiverers from that year are now 100% LD. I know it's a sample of only a hundred or so but you get a bit of a feeling on the doorstep. Bojo is so marmite that he pretty much gets those that dont like him determined to vote him out.
Anecdata.
A private poll of boomers that I know (and my parents know). If they are Remainy, definitely LD (my Mum was a life-long Tory voter and former councillor, and fell out with her Mum who was a Liberal councillor back in the day, and *she's* just joined the LDs).
If they are Brexity, then the 'get Brexit done' message is scoring highly, and/or people genuinely feel there should be more people in Parliament like JRM. No, seriously.
Nowhere have I found any support for Labour. Not one person.
They're hiding from you. They think all Tories believe Labour supporters are anti semites so they keep their voting intention between themselves and the voting booth
Look at last nights local election result in Croydon..the labour tribal vote is still there
My feeling is that this anti semitism confect will make no difference. Three or four Labour politicians don't like their leader. So what. The number who have left the Tory party because of Johnson and his policies runs into several dozen. Three ex cabinet ministers in the last week.
As you say Johnson's Marmite. In 2017 I didn't bother with a postal vote because Mrs May wasn't too awful. This time I'd crawl through a snow storm to vote against Johnson
It probably doesn't lose Labour votes, but it reinforces the determination among Lib Dems not to switch to Labour, and confirms Conservative and TBP voters in their determination to back their respective parties.
So long as that remains the case, there is no path to victory for the Labour Party.
I agree but very few people think there is. But the reason why people wont vote for Labour isn't anti semitism. It's anti Marxism. Anyone who finds Corbyn and his mob scarier than Nigel Farage Tommy Robinson The DUP and the outer fringes of the Tory Party because of racism is too stupid to vote
Not that the choice is any better in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon: "“If you are sick of the chaos [...] vote SNP to escape Brexit,”
Just imagine the chaos if Scotland finds itself simultaneously leaving the EU as part of the UK, trying to rejoin it as an independent state, and extricating itself from centuries of total economic integration with the UK.
At least we'll have chosen it rather than have had it imposed on us. That would mean a significant amount of 'taking responsibility' as people like you are always encouraging us to do.
Of course the people who said vote for the Union to stay in the EU and to avoid chaos are pretty much a busted flush. The mind boggles at what sort of argument to preserve the UK they'll make second time round.
I would imagine the argument 'you seen how disastrously difficult it has been leaving the EU, just imagine how much worse it will be leaving the United Kingdom' would get a lot of traction. Certainly it should.
Coming from the people who are entirely responsible for getting us into this current disastrous difficulty would certainly be piquant. I'm sure you'll give it a bash though.
Nick Robinson has improved his act. "That's like saying 'a food based diet'..." LOL
Then the idiot minister insists on repeating the line in response to every question.
It is why I could never enter politics. I could never sit there and spout party lines that are obvious trash. I am not perfect, but at least I have enough self-respect not to indulge in that kind of ...... junk? hypocrisy? farce?
I am not sure what the correct word is that describes that.
I understand the need for 'party lines', and while a slavish adherence to them would be utterly beyond me as well, it would be hard for parties to promote policies without them. In this case, though, the line is demonstrated as being utterly devoid of meaning, the minister appears to accept that (certainly doesn't contest it)... and then goes on spouting the line.
It is engaging in manifest contempt for the electorate. Though to be fair, it is her leader who has set the standard for that.
Not that the choice is any better in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon: "“If you are sick of the chaos [...] vote SNP to escape Brexit,”
Just imagine the chaos if Scotland finds itself simultaneously leaving the EU as part of the UK, trying to rejoin it as an independent state, and extricating itself from centuries of total economic integration with the UK.
At least we'll have chosen it rather than have had it imposed on us. That would mean a significant amount of 'taking responsibility' as people like you are always encouraging us to do.
Of course the people who said vote for the Union to stay in the EU and to avoid chaos are pretty much a busted flush. The mind boggles at what sort of argument to preserve the UK they'll make second time round.
I would imagine the argument 'you seen how disastrously difficult it has been leaving the EU, just imagine how much worse it will be leaving the United Kingdom' would get a lot of traction. Certainly it should.
Coming from the people who are entirely responsible for getting us into this current disastrous difficulty would certainly be piquant. I'm sure you'll give it a bash though.
Following SNP logic even if you win an independence referendum, independence should still be blocked if you can't get a deal with Westminster.
An Oxford College has launched an investigation after a porter asked a black alumnus if he used to “rob the place”.
St John’s College, which was founded in 1555, said it is prepared to “take action” after a recent graduate described the exchange on Twitter.
He said: “I went to my old college in Oxford yesterday to look round again. At the door I explained to the porter that I used to go there & he replied “What did you do, clean the windows? Rob it?””
The Roman Catholic Church will oppose calls for priests to break the seal of the confessional to report admissions of child abuse, a public inquiry was told yesterday.
From the SRA guidance for solicitors:-
“Preventing harm to children or vulnerable adults
There may be circumstances involving children or vulnerable adults where you should consider revealing confidential information to an appropriate authority. This may be where the child or adult in question is the client and they reveal information which indicates they are suffering sexual or other abuse but refuse to allow disclosure of such information.
Similarly there may be situations where the client discloses abuse either by himself or herself or by another adult against a child or vulnerable adult but refuses to allow any disclosure. As noted above, the examples discussed do not allow for disclosure after the event, however you may have reason to be concerned about the risk of future harm.
You are not required by law to disclose this information. You must therefore consider whether the threat to the person’s life or health is sufficiently serious to justify a breach of the duty of confidentiality.”
Beware all organisations (including professions) that where knowledge or information about serious crimes is concerned have a culture that puts loyalty to comrades or clients above disclosure to law enforcement.
The point I am making is that the rule which has so outraged TSE in relation to Catholic priests is the same as the rule which applies to him as a solicitor...
Except that under English law, priest-penitent privilege does not, I think, apply.
@TSE was presenting the idea of confidentiality between a professional and their client (let’s describe the priest-communicant relationship as that for the moment) as something unprecedented which the Catholic Church was asking for itself as some sort of special privilege whereas it is something which is well-known to English law.
Whether it should be extended to priests - and not just Catholic priests but all clergy from all religions - is another matter, of course. But let’s not pretend that this isn’t already an issue in other professions and sectors.
Which is an entirely fair point for you to make.
Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.
There is adequate evidence that the processes to deal with it are not robust or independent. If they were the problem would be gone by now.
Exactly this. When this story first broke I thought that Labour would throw some antisemites out of their party and then it would become a non-story.
They are unable or unwilling to do so. The distinction doesn't matter to me as both are bad enough.
I agree. And I trust you feel similarly about the Conservatives for readmitting the likes of Griffiths and Elphicke simply for the convenience of their vote (which led to the embarrassment of having to suspend Elphicke again when he was charged).
My feelings about the Conservatives are a bit different because I never expected them to take complaints of Islamophobia seriously enough, so I don't have the same feeling of disappointment.
On the allegations of sexual harassment, those are a much bigger problem in some ways because, for example, the reluctance of jurors to convict in rape trials demonstrates that this is a wider problem in society than purely party discipline.
I was never going to vote Tory, but I did vote Labour for the regional list at HE2016.
Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.
My issue is to do with the fact that the legal profession does not have a systemic history of covering up child abuse, unlike the Catholic Church, they need to realise they need to improve their conduct when it comes to child abuse.
If the Conservatives get a strong majority in this election they should pass some very strong EVFEL changes. They should be rather uncontroversial at the minute but should protect England after future elections from the whims of other nations with their own devolved powers.
We need a full, devolved English Parliament. A federal UK is the only long-term solution - everything else creates more problems than it solves.
On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
After having done a little bit of canvassing over the last week as a sanity check on the 2017 Tory pledges I am now in a position to say that I think the Conservatives are in some real trouble. People apathetic(I know more than 2017) and some lib dem tory waiverers from that year are now 100% LD. I know it's a sample of only a hundred or so but you get a bit of a feeling on the doorstep. Bojo is so marmite that he pretty much gets those that dont like him determined to vote him out.
Anecdata.
A private poll of boomers that I know (and my parents know). If they are Remainy, definitely LD (my Mum was a life-long Tory voter and former councillor, and fell out with her Mum who was a Liberal councillor back in the day, and *she's* just joined the LDs).
If they are Brexity, then the 'get Brexit done' message is scoring highly, and/or people genuinely feel there should be more people in Parliament like JRM. No, seriously.
Nowhere have I found any support for Labour. Not one person.
They're hiding from you. They think all Tories believe Labour supporters are anti semites so they keep their voting intention between themselves and the voting booth
Look at last nights local election result in Croydon..the labour tribal vote is still there
My feeling is that this anti semitism confect will make no difference. Three or four Labour politicians don't like their leader. So what. The number who have left the Tory party because of Johnson and his policies runs into several dozen. Three ex cabinet ministers in the last week.
As you say Johnson's Marmite. In 2017 I didn't bother with a postal vote because Mrs May wasn't too awful. This time I'd crawl through a snow storm to vote against Johnson
It probably doesn't lose Labour votes, but it reinforces the determination among Lib Dems not to switch to Labour, and confirms Conservative and TBP voters in their determination to back their respective parties.
So long as that remains the case, there is no path to victory for the Labour Party.
I agree but very few people think there is. But the reason why people wont vote for Labour isn't anti semitism. It's anti Marxism. Anyone who finds Corbyn and his mob scarier than Nigel Farage Tommy Robinson The DUP and the outer fringes of the Tory Party because of racism is too stupid to vote
Scary is nothing to do with it. It's disgust. Personally I think Brexit is crazy but even a No Deal exit would be preferable to the shame of Corbyn as PM.
If the Tories win a majority thanks to England and Wales then what path do Scots here see towards an independence referendum?
I'd imagine if the SNP get 50+ seats then it'd be difficult not to recognise that and see a referendum, but I'm biased being a Tory that actually does want a second [and successful] independence referendum.
Is The decision not to grant a section 30 notice subject to Judicial Review?
If it was refused at a time which seemed manifestly unreasonable - say after a clear victory in HE2021 with another referendum as a manifesto commitment - then you might think a court could be willing to rule it as unreasonable.
Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.
My issue is to do with the fact that the legal profession does not have a systemic history of covering up child abuse, unlike the Catholic Church, they need to realise they need to improve their conduct when it comes to child abuse.
Of course they do.
I would be wary of saying that the legal profession has clean hands - we have had a number of examples on here of lawyers turning a blind eye to or facilitating crimes. We don’t know what they have known about and not done anything about in the field of child abuse. Given how extensive it is in so many organisations, all of which will have consulted lawyers at some point, I expect there have been plenty of lawyers who knew about unsavoury allegations and goings-on and did nothing.
If the Conservatives get a strong majority in this election they should pass some very strong EVFEL changes. They should be rather uncontroversial at the minute but should protect England after future elections from the whims of other nations with their own devolved powers.
We need a full, devolved English Parliament. A federal UK is the only long-term solution - everything else creates more problems than it solves.
An English Parliament is a great idea if you want to dissolve the Union. The weight of it would set up an mutually destructive dynamic between “UK” and “England”.
Regional Assemblies would do a better job of addressing our constitutional mess. Yorkshire should fund and manage the Yorkshire branch of the NHS...
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
I don't get the Tory line on the 2nd IndyRef. How is any government supposed to deny a 2nd ref if the people of Scotland vote for it?
The Spanish government manages to ignore the Catalan Government's requests for an Independence referendum and Boris would follow suit, certainly until the 2021 Holyrood elections
Anyone know who is financing and organising the defection of John Woodcock and Ian Austin? The posters the low loaders and the press conference were put together by someone. Defections are usually just a group of suppoerters being drowned out by some traffic. Was it the Tories or one of the Brexit groups?
On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
Not that the choice is any better in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon: "“If you are sick of the chaos [...] vote SNP to escape Brexit,”
Just imagine the chaos if Scotland finds itself simultaneously leaving the EU as part of the UK, trying to rejoin it as an independent state, and extricating itself from centuries of total economic integration with the UK.
At least we'll have chosen it rather than have had it imposed on us. That would mean a significant amount of 'taking responsibility' as people like you are always encouraging us to do.
Of course the people who said vote for the Union to stay in the EU and to avoid chaos are pretty much a busted flush. The mind boggles at what sort of argument to preserve the UK they'll make second time round.
I would imagine the argument 'you've seen how disastrously difficult it has been leaving the EU, just imagine how much worse it will be leaving the United Kingdom' would get a lot of traction. Certainly it should: Scottish nationalism is based just as much on a romantic fantasy as leaving the EU is.
How they talk about 'Brexit chaos' with a straight face is quite remarkable.
Sturgeon says she will have significant power over labour
Will not give support to a Corbyn budget unless he agrees a referendum
Just gets worse and worse for Corbyn
Are there any floating voters this will change minds of? I'd say no.
For Remain tactical voters, they see staying in the EU as a way of keeping Scotland in the Union, so tactically voting Labour for the 2 refs isn't a problem for them.
For Labour Leavers, how much do they care about Scottish independence or even Scottish power over Labour? They care about the NHS, Education and other things much more. In fact, SNP are probably the kind of moderate lefties they would agree with policy wise if it wasn't for the fact they were Scotch Nats.
For everyone who already hates Labour... They already hate Labour and weren't voting for them anyway.
If anything, it looks increasingly likely that Sturgeon will be seen as a moderating force on Labour, allowing sceptical English voters a chance to vote Labour whilst hoping the SNP (and possibly the LDs) will moderate Lab or even force Corbyn out behind the scenes for someone more moderate.
Some people hate the Nats, sure, but I don't think as many people who are already considering voting Labour hate them more than the Tories or Brexit.
Don’t talk common sense on PB. The wee dears prefer their fantasy world.
There is no legal or indeed moral obligation for the UK government to grant Scotland an independence referendum, even if the SNP were to achieve a clean sweep of Scottish seats.
The lesson of the last few years is that referendums should be validatory rather than interrogative. I don’t think a Sindy referendum is justified unless there is a persistent and clear majority support for independence. 60, 65%
On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
After having done a little bit of canvassing over the last week as a sanity check on the 2017 Tory pledges I am now in a position to say that I think the Conservatives are in some real trouble. People apathetic(I know more than 2017) and some lib dem tory waiverers from that year are now 100% LD. I know it's a sample of only a hundred or so but you get a bit of a feeling on the doorstep. Bojo is so marmite that he pretty much gets those that dont like him determined to vote him out.
Anecdata. If they are Remainy, definitely LD (my Mum was a life-long Tory voter and former councillor, and fell out with her Mum who was a Liberal councillor back in the day, and *she's* just joined the LDs).
If they are Brexity, then the 'get Brexit done' message is scoring highly, and/or people genuinely feel there should be more people in Parliament like JRM. No, seriously.
Not one person.
They're hiding from you. They think all Tories believe Labour supporters are anti semites so they keep their voting intention between themselves and the voting booth
Look at last nights local election result in Croydon..the labour tribal vote is still there
My feeling is that this anti semitism confect will make no difference. Three or four Labour politicians don't like their leader. So what. The number who have left the Tory party because of Johnson and his policies runs into several dozen. Three ex cabinet ministers in the last week.
As you say Johnson's Marmite. In 2017 I didn't bother with a postal vote because Mrs May wasn't too awful. This time I'd crawl through a snow storm to vote against Johnson
It probably doesn't lose Labour votes, but it reinforces the determination among Lib Dems not to switch to Labour, and confirms Conservative and TBP voters in their determination to back their respective parties.
So long as that remains the case, there is no path to victory for the Labour Party.
I agree but very few people think there is. But the reason why people wont vote for Labour isn't anti semitism. It's anti Marxism. Anyone who finds Corbyn and his mob scarier than Nigel Farage Tommy Robinson The DUP and the outer fringes of the Tory Party because of racism is too stupid to vote
Scary is nothing to do with it. It's disgust. Personally I think Brexit is crazy but even a No Deal exit would be preferable to the shame of Corbyn as PM.
What was the most anti semitic thing that you consider Corbyn responsibe for? I've asked several very irate posters this morning and so far not a single specific answer.
Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.
My issue is to do with the fact that the legal profession does not have a systemic history of covering up child abuse, unlike the Catholic Church, they need to realise they need to improve their conduct when it comes to child abuse.
Of course they do.
I would be wary of saying that the legal profession has clean hands - we have had a number of examples on here of lawyers turning a blind eye to or facilitating crimes. We don’t know what they have known about and not done anything about in the field of child abuse. Given how extensive it is in so many organisations, all of which will have consulted lawyers at some point, I expect there have been plenty of lawyers who knew about unsavoury allegations and goings-on and did nothing.
Some of the legal profession were committing their own crimes. It is a disgrace that Janner is being whitewashed when Sir Richard Henriques reviewed the case and concluded he should have been charged in the original investigation in the late 80s/early 90s, and Mick Creedon, subsequently Chief Constable of Derbyshire, stated in 2014 that he was ordered not to arrest Janner during that investigation. The Carl Beech fiasco has nothing to do with the wider evidence against Janner which was reviewed by Henriques.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
It's more consistent than the LibDem policy of supporting the Union in Scotland and then allying with separatists in Wales.
Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.
My issue is to do with the fact that the legal profession does not have a systemic history of covering up child abuse, unlike the Catholic Church, they need to realise they need to improve their conduct when it comes to child abuse.
Of course they do.
I would be wary of saying that the legal profession has clean hands - we have had a number of examples on here of lawyers turning a blind eye to or facilitating crimes. We don’t know what they have known about and not done anything about in the field of child abuse. Given how extensive it is in so many organisations, all of which will have consulted lawyers at some point, I expect there have been plenty of lawyers who knew about unsavoury allegations and goings-on and did nothing.
Going back twenty years, I can remember quite a lot of members of the profession complaining it was none of their business to check whether client funds were coming from legitimate sources, or whether their clients were giving a true identity.
If the Conservatives get a strong majority in this election they should pass some very strong EVFEL changes. They should be rather uncontroversial at the minute but should protect England after future elections from the whims of other nations with their own devolved powers.
We need a full, devolved English Parliament. A federal UK is the only long-term solution - everything else creates more problems than it solves.
An English Parliament is a great idea if you want to dissolve the Union. The weight of it would set up an mutually destructive dynamic between “UK” and “England”.
Regional Assemblies would do a better job of addressing our constitutional mess. Yorkshire should fund and manage the Yorkshire branch of the NHS...
Except that the Labour Party pushed that approach and there seemed very little appetite for it. There is a dissertation to be written on what the structure of sub-national government should be, taking into account factors such as efficiency, responsiveness, local support. In fact I once wrote one. Conclusion: there doesn't seem to be one obviously good answer...
On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
It's more consistent than the LibDem policy of supporting the Union in Scotland and then allying with separatists in Wales.
PC isn't really an independence party in practice like the SNP, though. They are more language nationalists and want a revitalisation of Welsh culture. I have many family members in the South of Wales who are PC voters (and one councillor) and they don't care about independence; they just are Welsh speakers first and care about their language and history.
On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
Far from it, it will win Unionist votes in Scotland to keep out Corbyn and Sturgeon
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
That completely backfires - with Sturgeon in control the more insane Labour policies would be moderated.
On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
It's more consistent than the LibDem policy of supporting the Union in Scotland and then allying with separatists in Wales.
Be more meaningful if anyone at all took the Welsh separatists seriously.
There is no legal or indeed moral obligation for the UK government to grant Scotland an independence referendum, even if the SNP were to achieve a clean sweep of Scottish seats.
The lesson of the last few years is that referendums should be validatory rather than interrogative. I don’t think a Sindy referendum is justified unless there is a persistent and clear majority support for independence. 60, 65%
Indeed, Westminster could block indyref2 quite legally for ever and until the SNP get 55%+ of the vote in Scotland then agreed there is no clear demand for it anyway
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
On Scottish independence: surely the Tories should say "yes, of course we'd have to respect the will of the Scottish people if they vote SNP to hold a referendum, and that is why you should vote Conservative as the only viable Unionist party who can also govern on x, y and z"? By saying they will refuse to allow another referendum, even if SNP win all MPs north of the border, it kind of makes them less scary. What is there to fear from a Nat the government won't allow to hold a referendum?
A Corbyn government that allows the Nats a referendum
So the Conservatives are willing to throw all their seats in Scotland away in the hope that Unionism will steal votes from Labour in England and Wales? I just don't see it.
It's more consistent than the LibDem policy of supporting the Union in Scotland and then allying with separatists in Wales.
Be more meaningful if anyone at all took the Welsh separatists seriously.
Of course, Plaid Cymru did better than the SNP in the first set of devolved elections in 1999.
PC responded by deposing their excellent & successful leader.
Since then, the SNP have done everything right, and Plaid Cymru everything wrong.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
That completely backfires - with Sturgeon in control the more insane Labour policies would be moderated.
Disagree, certainly the majority of Brits can't stand Sturgeon or Corbyn, to place them both together greatens the impact. Sturgeon is also unpopular with the working class Labour voters the Tories are trying to win round.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Forgive me, but this is quite a muddled argument, and I can't discern anything here that cuts through. Every point you make can be made the other way, more effectively. Why the opposition to Brexit if independence is such a good thing? It's power moving closer to the people after all.
The Tories are setting themselves up as the unionist option on Scotland. That appeals to a lot of people, especially within the confines of a polling booth where they are not being hectored by the local nat blowhard. It's no more complex than that.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
Easily the best speaker of all the UK party leaders.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
I think more people would prefer either Johnson or Corbyn.
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
I'm fine with it, for the reasons outlined by others. I've never met an English Labour voter who was scared by Sturgeon, and quite a few who think she's rather good.
Also, how does it fit with the "Corbyn is Stalin" line? One can be a horrible dictator given to murdering enemies. One can be a pathetic weakling in the pocket of regional nationalists. It's quite hard to be both.
Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.
My issue is to do with the fact that the legal profession does not have a systemic history of covering up child abuse, unlike the Catholic Church, they need to realise they need to improve their conduct when it comes to child abuse.
It's a point. Another one would be that the legal profession has not been entirely exemplary in policing the conduct of its own members either.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
It’s one of the big dichotomies in the Brexit movement. The elite are almost all British nationalists but your average English Brexiteer doesn’t care about the union.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
Easily the best speaker of all the UK party leaders.
She is a very talented politician. It is a shame that her horizons end at Dumfries and Galloway.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
Except the she aspires to leave the UK, rather than lead it.
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
I'm fine with it, for the reasons outlined by others. I've never met an English Labour voter who was scared by Sturgeon, and quite a few who think she's rather good.
Also, how does it fit with the "Corbyn is Stalin" line? One can be a horrible dictator given to murdering enemies. One can be a pathetic weakling in the pocket of regional nationalists. It's quite hard to be both.
If the Conservatives get a strong majority in this election they should pass some very strong EVFEL changes. They should be rather uncontroversial at the minute but should protect England after future elections from the whims of other nations with their own devolved powers.
We need a full, devolved English Parliament. A federal UK is the only long-term solution - everything else creates more problems than it solves.
An English Parliament is a great idea if you want to dissolve the Union. The weight of it would set up an mutually destructive dynamic between “UK” and “England”.
Regional Assemblies would do a better job of addressing our constitutional mess. Yorkshire should fund and manage the Yorkshire branch of the NHS...
Except that the Labour Party pushed that approach and there seemed very little appetite for it. There is a dissertation to be written on what the structure of sub-national government should be, taking into account factors such as efficiency, responsiveness, local support. In fact I once wrote one. Conclusion: there doesn't seem to be one obviously good answer...
Labour’s Assemblies seemed like expensive talking shops, though I am discounting “local support”, for the moment, as there is no clear support for any particular model - including the present one.
The German system works pretty well, I think. Something akin to that - with Yorkshire et al as Lander - is what I have in mind.
But don’t get us started on that those sub-national entities are. Yorkshire is perhaps the only one which people can agree on and even then one has the “Cleveland conundrum”.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
Except the she aspires to leave the UK, rather than lead it.
Dissolving the union is the last great act of leadership the UK needs. We need a Gorbachev.
Climate change - and our grossly inadequate response to it - is frightening. It is not an insoluble problem, but the global effort to solve it isn't there.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
Tories will ban indyref2 anyway so it is not an issue, they will deliver Brexit and ignore the SNP
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
Except the she aspires to leave the UK, rather than lead it.
Dissolving the union is the last great act of leadership the UK needs. We need a Gorbachev.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
Tories will ban indyref2 anyway so it is not an issue, they will deliver Brexit and ignore the SNP
You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
It isn't a bereft of ideas situation, it's part of a very clear and consistent campaign theme. Whether it will work is another matter.
Sturgeon is clearly the most experienced, accomplished and sensible leader in UK politics today. I think most people, including most English people, would much prefer to see her as PM then either Johnson or Corbyn.
Except the she aspires to leave the UK, rather than lead it.
Dissolving the union is the last great act of leadership the UK needs. We need a Gorbachev.
Gorbachev is respected abroad but hated in Russia now, hence why Putin is so popular.
Russian nationalism was the result of the breakup of the USSR.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
Tories will ban indyref2 anyway so it is not an issue, they will deliver Brexit and ignore the SNP
You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.
The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
What was the most anti semitic thing that you consider Corbyn responsibe for? I've asked several very irate posters this morning and so far not a single specific answer.
It's probably just because it's so hard to pick one, but for me it's the clear evidence that his team have been actively interfering in disciplinary cases involving allegations of antisemitism, exclusively to downgrade punishments.
A close second would be all the terrorists and racists he's shared platforms with over the years, and trying to justify this by claiming it's important to talk to both sides. It's perfectly clear he only talks to one side, and has never challenged any of the abhorrent views of some of the people he's associated with.
Disagree, certainly the majority of Brits can't stand Sturgeon or Corbyn, to place them both together greatens the impact. Sturgeon is also unpopular with the working class Labour voters the Tories are trying to win round.
Evidence? I don't think most working-class Labour English voters have a strong view about her either way.
Labour’s Assemblies seemed like expensive talking shops, though I am discounting “local support”, for the moment, as there is no clear support for any particular model - including the present one.
The German system works pretty well, I think. Something akin to that - with Yorkshire et al as Lander - is what I have in mind.
But don’t get us started on that those sub-national entities are. Yorkshire is perhaps the only one which people can agree on and even then one has the “Cleveland conundrum”.
It isn't really a conundrum. "Yorkshire" and "Durham" are centuries old constructs. The idea that the Tees is a regional barrier might have been true when Thormod the Viking built his farmstead in present day Thornaby-on-Tees, but I can tell you that today Thornaby is linked to Stockton, not York.
No matter how many times his eminence the Mayor of Thornaby demands Thornaby "rejoin Yorkshire" it doesn't muster up a reality where all that empty farmland and hills to our south is where our focus should be instead of in the conurbation we are now part of.
Anyway, if we're creating Lander don't we go for bigger regions? How about pre-invasion Northumbria on one side o'th' Pennines and Strathclyde on the other...
On a recent visit to Cambridge, I did some forays to the heavily Labour (& Brexity) wards in the East of the City. Cherry Hinton is absolutely festooned in Vote Labour placards.
I think the LibDems view of the city -- as they jaunt back to the old College for a formal -- is restricted to the Northern wards (which they will win handsomely).
Labour will hold Cambridge.
Dan Z's majority will be down, but I don't think it will be close. Labour by at least 6k
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
Tories will ban indyref2 anyway so it is not an issue, they will deliver Brexit and ignore the SNP
You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
Wasn't that mainly out of expediency though? Chaos and division within the EU would give them a cloak for the failings for Brexit.
You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.
The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
Speaking as a Brexit voter that takes their side I'm calling out your comment as bollocks. I take their side and the side of Yes in Scotland. You can speak for yourself, not me and not every other of the 17.4 million Brexit voters.
What was the most anti semitic thing that you consider Corbyn responsibe for? I've asked several very irate posters this morning and so far not a single specific answer.
Three things off the top of my head:-
1. Saying that British Jews needed to be taught irony. 2. Inviting a convicted anti-semite - Raed Salah - to Parliament saying that his voice needed to be heard. 3. Travelling to meet President Assad with a group which specifically denies the Holocaust.
The first caused great dismay amongst Jews here - some anyway.
On 2 and 3, I do not see how it is defensible to say that the voice of anti-semites should be heard in our Parliament as a guest or to choose to travel with Holocaust deniers. At the very least you are giving them your imprimatur as an MP. It might - just about - be defensible if you condemned those views but there is no record of Corbyn having done so with regard to either of those.
Read Deborah Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust" and Richard Evans on the Irving libel trial to understand why it is important not to given Holocaust deniers any space at all.
Now to be absolutely clear I don't know whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic or whether he simply allows others to express their anti-semitism. But the latter is very poor in a leader, especially one who claims to be anti-racist. He can be rightly called out on that.
If he is the lifelong anti-racist that he claims, it is most odd that under his leadership this stench has grown and not been removed; that so many people have felt able to utter vile anti-Jewish comments and that his party is facing a formal investigation on this issue by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. It is all very unfortunate and for someone who is so in control of his party and so loved / admired by the members it is, well, a bit odd that he has not been able to impose his will and ensure that anti-semitism is removed from his party. After all, he has said a number of times that they don't do it in his name. So why do they keep doing it? Do they know better than him? Do they look at his record over the years instead? Or do they simply ignore him - and apparently only on this issue? It is very curious. Perhaps the actions don't match the words. Perhaps the words are just for show. Who can say?
You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.
The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
Speaking as a Brexit voter that takes their side I'm calling out your comment as bollocks. I take their side and the side of Yes in Scotland. You can speak for yourself, not me and not every other of the 17.4 million Brexit voters.
You are not a Tory or even a conservative really but a libertarian like Tyndall.
Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 correctly and I am fully behind him
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
Tories will ban indyref2 anyway so it is not an issue, they will deliver Brexit and ignore the SNP
You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.
The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
On average there has been 1 independence referendum every 300 or so years.
If we have another next year its one every 150 years. Still much less than once in a generation.
Conservative 22% Labour 10% Lib Dem 8% SNP 47% Brexit Party 5% Green 8%
YouGov/The Times/Sky 5-6 Nov
Is that a scotland only poll?
That's Kaboom territory.
That is annihilatory LD don't even win Fife NE, Conservatives down to 3 seats level.
NE Fife, not Fife NE!
Lots of issues like that slip in, I've noticed discrepancies with poll cards and such a few times
The comment was slightly tongue in cheek. NE Fife has always felt itself distinct (for which read superior) to the rest of the county, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the old District council of NE Fife was subsumed into the Fife unitary authority. But it is quite a distinct place and very much NE Fife rather than Fife NE.
Is that to do with the St Andrews university donariat?
Well it is very much to do with St Andrews, but I'm not sure I know what a donariat is! NE Fife is basically St Andrews, farming country, and some other small towns and fishing villages, traditionally Liberal and Tory leaning. The rest of Fife was pit villages and industrial towns, very working class and traditionally solid Labour with Communism at the edges. Culturally the two areas were as distinct as it is possible to imagine. The fact that the SNP has won seats in both areas is a testament to their political genius.
Not sure I would completely agree with that. I worked in Cupar in NE Fife for about 15 years and we had offices in St Andrews and Anstruther as well. Cupar is not what it was and the demise of both the Council and the Court has hit it hard but it is still a reasonably prosperous town with a good selection of shops. In the Neuk of Fife there are some spectacularly beautiful villages which regrettably hide considerable poverty mainly caused by the collapse of the fishing industry. St Andrews is probably more dominant economically than it was and the University is certainly more dominant in the town but there is a lot more to NE Fife than that.
When I first went there in the 90s it was pretty Tory but Ming built an empire whilst MP and the Lib Dems had the Council latterly.
On a recent visit to Cambridge, I did some forays to the heavily Labour (& Brexity) wards in the East of the City. Cherry Hinton is absolutely festooned in Vote Labour placards.
I think the LibDems view of the city -- as they jaunt back to the old College for a formal -- is restricted to the Northern wards (which they will win handsomely).
Labour will hold Cambridge.
Dan Z's majority will be down, but I don't think it will be close. Labour by at least 6k
LDs will gain Cambridge in current swing in most polls and middle class voters have higher turnout
You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.
The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
Speaking as a Brexit voter that takes their side I'm calling out your comment as bollocks. I take their side and the side of Yes in Scotland. You can speak for yourself, not me and not every other of the 17.4 million Brexit voters.
You are not a Tory or even a conservative really but a libertarian like Tyndall.
Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 correctly and I am fully behind him
Yes I am a libertarian as are many Tories, we make up a considerable chunk of the party. You didn't say lowercase c conservative you said Brexit voters.
The Tory party, bereft of ideas, returns to its last zinger that had a dribble of traction. Nicola pinching a wallet full of fine English banknotes next?
Once again, I know think this will backfire. I don't know Sturgeon's +/- numbers amongst the English, but I assume they are higher than Corbyn's. If anything, this allows an argument for another party moderating Labour. Yes, they are Nats who want independence, but I do not see many English people caring about this right now, especially since all the language of independence is being used positively for Brexit.
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
Your second paragraph covers inconsistencies that tbf a few Brexiteers acknowledge, but many don't.
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
Tories will ban indyref2 anyway so it is not an issue, they will deliver Brexit and ignore the SNP
You do realise that a lot of Brexit voters take the side of the Catalan separatists?
No they don't bar Richard Tyndall.
The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
On average there has been 1 independence referendum every 300 or so years.
If we have another next year its one every 150 years. Still much less than once in a generation.
No the next generation after 2014 would be about 2030 at the earliest.
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd independence referendum in 1995 after the first in 1980
After having done a little bit of canvassing over the last week as a sanity check on the 2017 Tory pledges I am now in a position to say that I think the Conservatives are in some real trouble. People apathetic(I know more than 2017) and some lib dem tory waiverers from that year are now 100% LD. I know it's a sample of only a hundred or so but you get a bit of a feeling on the doorstep. Bojo is so marmite that he pretty much gets those that dont like him determined to vote him out.
Anecdata.
A private poll of boomers that I know (and my parents know). If they are Remainy, definitely LD (my Mum was a life-long Tory voter and former councillor, and fell out with her Mum who was a Liberal councillor back in the day, and *she's* just joined the LDs).
If they are Brexity, then the 'get Brexit done' message is scoring highly, and/or people genuinely feel there should be more people in Parliament like JRM. No, seriously.
Nowhere have I found any support for Labour. Not one person.
They're hiding from you. They think all Tories believe Labour supporters are anti semites so they keep their voting intention between themselves and the voting booth
Look at last nights local election result in Croydon..the labour tribal vote is still there
My feeling is that this anti semitism confect will make no difference. Three or four Labour politicians don't like their leader. So what. The number who have left the Tory party because of Johnson and his policies runs into several dozen. Three ex cabinet ministers in the last week.
As you say Johnson's Marmite. In 2017 I didn't bother with a postal vote because Mrs May wasn't too awful. This time I'd crawl through a snow storm to vote against Johnson
So long as that remains the case, there is no path to victory for the Labour Party.
I agree but very few people think there is. But the reason why people wont vote for Labour isn't anti semitism. It's anti Marxism. Anyone who finds Corbyn and his mob scarier than Nigel Farage Tommy Robinson The DUP and the outer fringes of the Tory Party because of racism is too stupid to vote
Scary is nothing to do with it. It's disgust. Personally I think Brexit is crazy but even a No Deal exit would be preferable to the shame of Corbyn as PM.
Extraordinary how many people feel disgust without the ability to articulate what disgusts tham. Incidentally if it's disgust and not being scared then I'd add names like Theresa May for her immigrant go home buses and Pritti Patel for her views on execution and Travellers
What was the most anti semitic thing that you consider Corbyn responsibe for? I've asked several very irate posters this morning and so far not a single specific answer.
Three things off the top of my head:-
1. Saying that British Jews needed to be taught irony. 2. Inviting a convicted anti-semite - Raed Salah - to Parliament saying that his voice needed to be heard. 3. Travelling to meet President Assad with a group which specifically denies the Holocaust.
The first caused great dismay amongst Jews here - some anyway.
On 2 and 3, I do not see how it is defensible to say that the voice of anti-semites should be heard in our Parliament as a guest or to choose to travel with Holocaust deniers. At the very least you are giving them your imprimatur as an MP. It might - just about - be defensible if you condemned those views but there is no record of Corbyn having done so with regard to either of those.
Read Deborah Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust" and Richard Evans on the Irving libel trial to understand why it is important not to given Holocaust deniers any space at all.
Now to be absolutely clear I don't know whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic or whether he simply allows others to express their anti-semitism. But the latter is very poor in a leader, especially one who claims to be anti-racist. He can be rightly called out on that.
If he is the lifelong anti-racist that he claims, it is most odd that under his leadership this stench has grown and not been removed; that so many people have felt able to utter vile anti-Jewish comments and that his party is facing a formal investigation on this issue by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. It is all very unfortunate and for someone who is so in control of his party and so loved / admired by the members it is, well, a bit odd that he has not been able to impose his will and ensure that anti-semitism is removed from his party. After all, he has said a number of times that they don't do it in his name. So why do they keep doing it? Do they know better than him? Do they look at his record over the years instead? Or do they simply ignore him - and apparently only on this issue? It is very curious. Perhaps the actions don't match the words. Perhaps the words are just for show. Who can say?
Comments
SLab 10%? Almost believable. Maybe low teens?
SCon 22%? A bit low. Maybe 25%.
SNP 47%? Maybe, but if the Greens put up lots of candidates, you can knock at least 3 points off that.
Still, to be 40%+ twelve years into Government, in an FPTP election: I’m chuffed.
I'd imagine if the SNP get 50+ seats then it'd be difficult not to recognise that and see a referendum, but I'm biased being a Tory that actually does want a second [and successful] independence referendum.
Whether it should be extended to priests - and not just Catholic priests but all clergy from all religions - is another matter, of course. But let’s not pretend that this isn’t already an issue in other professions and sectors.
Including repeating the unsubstantiated claims about Medicine Costs if Brexit.
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1192774785044013056
I think Boris will be alright this time but he might need somewhere safer in the long run.
In this case, though, the line is demonstrated as being utterly devoid of meaning, the minister appears to accept that (certainly doesn't contest it)... and then goes on spouting the line.
It is engaging in manifest contempt for the electorate. Though to be fair, it is her leader who has set the standard for that.
An Oxford College has launched an investigation after a porter asked a black alumnus if he used to “rob the place”.
St John’s College, which was founded in 1555, said it is prepared to “take action” after a recent graduate described the exchange on Twitter.
He said: “I went to my old college in Oxford yesterday to look round again. At the door I explained to the porter that I used to go there & he replied “What did you do, clean the windows? Rob it?””
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/07/oxford-college-launches-probe-porter-asked-black-alumnus-used/
Mine was that the facilitation of legal representation, and the concomitant legal recognition of a duty of confidentiality goes well beyond that of 'a professional and their client'.
On the allegations of sexual harassment, those are a much bigger problem in some ways because, for example, the reluctance of jurors to convict in rape trials demonstrates that this is a wider problem in society than purely party discipline.
I was never going to vote Tory, but I did vote Labour for the regional list at HE2016.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1192778822569070592?s=20
Personally I think Brexit is crazy but even a No Deal exit would be preferable to the shame of Corbyn as PM.
If it was refused at a time which seemed manifestly unreasonable - say after a clear victory in HE2021 with another referendum as a manifesto commitment - then you might think a court could be willing to rule it as unreasonable.
I would be wary of saying that the legal profession has clean hands - we have had a number of examples on here of lawyers turning a blind eye to or facilitating crimes. We don’t know what they have known about and not done anything about in the field of child abuse. Given how extensive it is in so many organisations, all of which will have consulted lawyers at some point, I expect there have been plenty of lawyers who knew about unsavoury allegations and goings-on and did nothing.
Regional Assemblies would do a better job of addressing our constitutional mess. Yorkshire should fund and manage the Yorkshire branch of the NHS...
The lesson of the last few years is that referendums should be validatory rather than interrogative. I don’t think a Sindy referendum is justified unless there is a persistent and clear majority support for independence. 60, 65%
That will be quite important I imagine.
https://twitter.com/KrVaSt/status/1192379141880000512?s=20
Anyone who makes an argument that Brexit is good actually, but Scottish independence would be silly, kinda open themselves up not just to practical arguments about the economic damage Brexit will cause, but the emotional arguments used to champion Brexit. If sovereignty is a moral good for the UK, why can't the same be held for Scotland? If making our laws in Westminster, not Brussels is a reasonable argument, why isn't making our laws in Holyrood not Westminster?
There is a dissertation to be written on what the structure of sub-national government should be, taking into account factors such as efficiency, responsiveness, local support. In fact I once wrote one. Conclusion: there doesn't seem to be one obviously good answer...
I'm not quite sure who this tweet is aimed at. Polling consistently shows a majority of Tories and Brexiteers indifferent to the Union, and dumping Scotland & NI as a price worth paying for 'getting Brexit done'.
PC responded by deposing their excellent & successful leader.
Since then, the SNP have done everything right, and Plaid Cymru everything wrong.
The Tories are setting themselves up as the unionist option on Scotland. That appeals to a lot of people, especially within the confines of a polling booth where they are not being hectored by the local nat blowhard. It's no more complex than that.
Also, how does it fit with the "Corbyn is Stalin" line? One can be a horrible dictator given to murdering enemies. One can be a pathetic weakling in the pocket of regional nationalists. It's quite hard to be both.
Another one would be that the legal profession has not been entirely exemplary in policing the conduct of its own members either.
Falling back to good old Crosby xenophobia is a winner here.
https://twitter.com/KrVaSt
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/11/lord-ashcroft-my-focus-groups-in-three-heavily-remain-voting-liberal-democrat-targets.html
Not all that promising for the LDs.
The German system works pretty well, I think.
Something akin to that - with Yorkshire et al as Lander - is what I have in mind.
But don’t get us started on that those sub-national entities are. Yorkshire is perhaps the only one which people can agree on and even then one has the “Cleveland conundrum”.
It is not an insoluble problem, but the global effort to solve it isn't there.
Russian nationalism was the result of the breakup of the USSR.
The Brexit Party is neutral on Scottish independence perhaps, the Conservative and Unionist Party as Boris has made clear will follow the lead of its sister party the Popular Party in Spain and ban a new indyref. 2014 was supposed to be a referendum for a generation
A close second would be all the terrorists and racists he's shared platforms with over the years, and trying to justify this by claiming it's important to talk to both sides. It's perfectly clear he only talks to one side, and has never challenged any of the abhorrent views of some of the people he's associated with.
No matter how many times his eminence the Mayor of Thornaby demands Thornaby "rejoin Yorkshire" it doesn't muster up a reality where all that empty farmland and hills to our south is where our focus should be instead of in the conurbation we are now part of.
Anyway, if we're creating Lander don't we go for bigger regions? How about pre-invasion Northumbria on one side o'th' Pennines and Strathclyde on the other...
I think the LibDems view of the city -- as they jaunt back to the old College for a formal -- is restricted to the Northern wards (which they will win handsomely).
Labour will hold Cambridge.
Dan Z's majority will be down, but I don't think it will be close. Labour by at least 6k
Or just a natter between those two in a TV studio?
1. Saying that British Jews needed to be taught irony.
2. Inviting a convicted anti-semite - Raed Salah - to Parliament saying that his voice needed to be heard.
3. Travelling to meet President Assad with a group which specifically denies the Holocaust.
The first caused great dismay amongst Jews here - some anyway.
On 2 and 3, I do not see how it is defensible to say that the voice of anti-semites should be heard in our Parliament as a guest or to choose to travel with Holocaust deniers. At the very least you are giving them your imprimatur as an MP. It might - just about - be defensible if you condemned those views but there is no record of Corbyn having done so with regard to either of those.
Read Deborah Lipstadt's book "Denying the Holocaust" and Richard Evans on the Irving libel trial to understand why it is important not to given Holocaust deniers any space at all.
Now to be absolutely clear I don't know whether Corbyn is himself anti-semitic or whether he simply allows others to express their anti-semitism. But the latter is very poor in a leader, especially one who claims to be anti-racist. He can be rightly called out on that.
If he is the lifelong anti-racist that he claims, it is most odd that under his leadership this stench has grown and not been removed; that so many people have felt able to utter vile anti-Jewish comments and that his party is facing a formal investigation on this issue by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. It is all very unfortunate and for someone who is so in control of his party and so loved / admired by the members it is, well, a bit odd that he has not been able to impose his will and ensure that anti-semitism is removed from his party. After all, he has said a number of times that they don't do it in his name. So why do they keep doing it? Do they know better than him? Do they look at his record over the years instead? Or do they simply ignore him - and apparently only on this issue? It is very curious. Perhaps the actions don't match the words. Perhaps the words are just for show. Who can say?
Or maybe we should apply Ockham's Rule instead?
Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 correctly and I am fully behind him
https://twitter.com/edmundedgar/status/1192792093657198592
If we have another next year its one every 150 years. Still much less than once in a generation.
When I first went there in the 90s it was pretty Tory but Ming built an empire whilst MP and the Lib Dems had the Council latterly.
Quebec waited 15 years for its 2nd independence referendum in 1995 after the first in 1980