I don't understand why there's such a strong link between being left-of-centre and being a strong supporter of the lockdown. It could be anti-libertarianism, but at one time the left was just as, if not more, libertarian than the right, in for example the 1960s and 1970s. At that time it was old-fashioned conservatives like Mary Whitehouse who were more likely to be anti-libertarian.
Isn't this just a class thing? Labourite Lefties are MORE likely to be middle class, urban, professional, or they are public sector, or students. As such they are insulated from the worst horrors of lockdown. Teachers will not get laid off, nor will doctors.
North London writers can work from their homes. They're probably enjoying the lockdown sun. Posh wankers.
Tory voters are somewhat more likely to be self employed (no furlough for them), in the private sector (facing redundancy if lockdown persists) and so on.
There's certainly an element of the middle class who believe the proles should work and take risks while they enjoy the pleasures of life.
It links into the 'get some immigrants to keep the wages down mentality'.
I don't understand why there's such a strong link between being left-of-centre and being a strong supporter of the lockdown. It could be anti-libertarianism, but at one time the left was just as, if not more, libertarian than the right, in for example the 1960s and 1970s. At that time it was old-fashioned conservatives like Mary Whitehouse who were more likely to be anti-libertarian.
Isn't this just a class thing? Labourite Lefties are MORE likely to be middle class, urban, professional, or they are public sector, or students. As such they are insulated from the worst horrors of lockdown. Teachers will not get laid off, nor will doctors.
North London writers can work from their homes. They're probably enjoying the lockdown sun. Posh wankers.
Tory voters are somewhat more likely to be self employed (no furlough for them), in the private sector (facing redundancy if lockdown persists) and so on.
I think it's more just that the naive belief that the government can or should solve every problem is now deeply ingrained in them - they voted for the government to nationalize everything that wasn't nailed down and to supply all services up to and including broadband, so of course they'd like the government to cure the coronavirus while paying them full wages to sit at home and do nothing.
What is interesting is that there is a similar attitude from the left - Biden doesn't like 230, apparently.
What it does, is shield platforms from liability for publishing other peoples stuff. For example, in the US, OGH has quite a lot of protection from the consequences of me posting this comment.
Trump is arguing that because Twitter et al are doing *anything* editorial, then they are not covered under 230.
Some on the left want to make Facebook, Twitter etc legally responsible for *all* content they publish.
Yep. Twitter's decision to editorialise Trump's Tweets might be about to create a rare cross-party coalition, in favour of reigning in the social media companies.
Twitter wants to retain the positives of being both an information conduit and a publisher, whilst not being subjected to the negatives of either.
Which would also be in the interest of Big Media - since they can afford the lawyers and insurance to protect themselves.
Yes, it would present a barrier to entry for new media companies and entrench the status quo, albeit with additional costs for current social media companies that take advantage of S230.
As I've been predicting for a long time, the 2020 elections in the US are going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news and negative campaigning from all sides, with Google and Facebook in the middle profiting from the mess. I'm happy now to add Twitter to the club. No matter who wins, there will almost certainly be bipartisan support for changes to social media law.
I don't understand why there's such a strong link between being left-of-centre and being a strong supporter of the lockdown. It could be anti-libertarianism, but at one time the left was just as, if not more, libertarian than the right, in for example the 1960s and 1970s. At that time it was old-fashioned conservatives like Mary Whitehouse who were more likely to be anti-libertarian.
Isn't this just a class thing? Labourite Lefties are MORE likely to be middle class, urban, professional, or they are public sector, or students. As such they are insulated from the worst horrors of lockdown. Teachers will not get laid off, nor will doctors.
North London writers can work from their homes. They're probably enjoying the lockdown sun. Posh wankers.
Tory voters are somewhat more likely to be self employed (no furlough for them), in the private sector (facing redundancy if lockdown persists) and so on.
There's certainly an element of the middle class who believe the proles should work and take risks while they enjoy the pleasures of life.
It links into the 'get some immigrants to keep the wages down mentality'.
...because all UK working class people are too lazy and stupid to work for the wages we are prepared to pay. Some of them don't even like cake.....
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Just not sure he can be described as her partner when his wife and three children allege they knew nothing about the relationship, and are shattered
One amusing thing about this story is the way Justin instantly described her as beyond the pale for being an adulterer.
Strangely, this objection never seemed to apply to Corbyn...
I was never a Corbynite . and had I been presnted with clear evidence that he was an adulterer or fornicator I would have refused to vote for him in his constituency.
Why the constant obsession with what people you have never met do with their genitals?
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69 Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
Just calling it as it is..
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....
Tony Blair did not “give” the Scots anything. We took the powers. They were relinquished begrudgingly.
Indeed. He tried to wreck the referendum by adding that question on taxation. I don't suppose he expected the result!
I find that perspective a little hard to swallow, given that St Tony walked on water with a landslide majority at the time. He didn't need to do it, he wanted to. Don't forget that breaking the UK up into regions with their own legislatures was always a cornerstone of EU and New Labour policy. I think he just thought there would be Labour Scottish Governments forever.
I may well have been unfair, as noted elsewhere, so apologies to Mr Blair if so. But my perception of the time was that the horse was being held back, in the hope the Scots would emasculate their own administration. .
By way of a PB pedantry: he wouldn't have expected Labour Scottish Gmts forever - only Labour-dominated unionist coalitions with the LDs, given the modified d'Hondt system which was openly admitted to have been put in place to prevent the SNP ever getting a majority.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
I don't understand why there's such a strong link between being left-of-centre and being a strong supporter of the lockdown. It could be anti-libertarianism, but at one time the left was just as, if not more, libertarian than the right, in for example the 1960s and 1970s. At that time it was old-fashioned conservatives like Mary Whitehouse who were more likely to be anti-libertarian.
Isn't this just a class thing? Labourite Lefties are MORE likely to be middle class, urban, professional, or they are public sector, or students. As such they are insulated from the worst horrors of lockdown. Teachers will not get laid off, nor will doctors.
North London writers can work from their homes. They're probably enjoying the lockdown sun. Posh wankers.
Tory voters are somewhat more likely to be self employed (no furlough for them), in the private sector (facing redundancy if lockdown persists) and so on.
There's certainly an element of the middle class who believe the proles should work and take risks while they enjoy the pleasures of life.
It links into the 'get some immigrants to keep the wages down mentality'.
...because all UK working class people are too lazy and stupid to work for the wages we are prepared to pay. Some of them don't even like cake.....
Its worse than that - there is a tendency among them to vote Conservative.
I may well have been unfair, as noted elsewhere, so apologies to Mr Blair if so. But my perception of the time was that the horse was being held back, in the hope the Scots would emasculate their own administration. .
By way of a PB pedantry: he wouldn't have expected Labour Scottish Gmts forever - only Labour-dominated unionist coalitions with the LDs, given the modified d'Hondt system which was openly admitted to have been put in place to prevent the SNP ever getting a majority.
The d’Hondt system is a disaster. Most undemocratic system imaginable. Hence I presume why it was so popular in New Labour.
Alistair Campbell once ordered Robin Cook to make an instant decision - leave your wife, or leave your job.
He left his wife. Most brutal breakup imaginable (he told her as they were about to board the plane to go on holiday together) but saved the government.
Typical of how Campbell operated (and Cook, for the matter of that). Not nice, and not good. But such ruthlessness wasn’t needed here. A humble mea culpa, an undertaking to behave in future and an agreement to step back from all work to do with the pandemic and the story would have fizzled out in twelve hours.
We’ve now got to the stage where it has so damaged the government it is far from clear it can survive much longer, and where the government’s own policies have been fatally undermined and are being widely flouted.
All to protect a man so insecure he doesn’t have the courage to admit he’s made a mistake.
The way Campbell operated was abominable, especially towards the unfortunate Margaret Cook. But a little more of that decisiveness would have worked wonders.
For Campbell, media was everything. For Cummings, media is nothing. They operate differently.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
I have decided you are a parody. A brilliant parody, mind.
Alistair Campbell once ordered Robin Cook to make an instant decision - leave your wife, or leave your job.
He left his wife. Most brutal breakup imaginable (he told her as they were about to board the plane to go on holiday together) but saved the government.
Typical of how Campbell operated (and Cook, for the matter of that). Not nice, and not good. But such ruthlessness wasn’t needed here. A humble mea culpa, an undertaking to behave in future and an agreement to step back from all work to do with the pandemic and the story would have fizzled out in twelve hours.
We’ve now got to the stage where it has so damaged the government it is far from clear it can survive much longer, and where the government’s own policies have been fatally undermined and are being widely flouted.
All to protect a man so insecure he doesn’t have the courage to admit he’s made a mistake.
The way Campbell operated was abominable, especially towards the unfortunate Margaret Cook. But a little more of that decisiveness would have worked wonders.
For Campbell, media was everything. For Cummings, media is nothing. They operate differently.
I disagree. For Cummings, media is not nothing, it’s the enemy.
That may explain why he’s so reluctant to admit they have him bang to rights.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
You reckon they show up as infected in antigen tests but don't produce any antibodies?
No - the opposite. They don't show up as infected in antigen tests because igG antibodies are not produced. Their innate immune system deals with their viral dose in the first day or two and the acquired immune system doesn't need to come into play. They are "damp wood" in the conflagration that rips through the dry tinder (old and compromised) but doesn't allow the smouldering embers to flare up again except in isolated hot spots that are quickly extinguished using track, trace, isolate.
The antigen tests are for the virus, not the antibody.
oops. I said I was not medical. If their innate immune system deals with the virus in a couple of days and they have an antigen test in those days then I guess the virus would turn up. I'm guessing the antigen test doesn't require anitibodies - just bits of virus.
The reason I ask is because if you don't think they would show up in antigen tests, and you want to believe they are a large percentage of the population (say 80% or 90%) then you have the problem that to give an apparent R number of 2-3 you would need the real R0 (for propagation into a population without immunity) to be 15-20, which is really not believable.
Obviously in the circumstance you describe they wouldn't show up in most of the testing that has been done so far, only in random testing, and only if it caught them in a very narrow window of opportunity.
Unfortunately, this idea of widespread innate immunity doesn't make sense. I wish it did.
Could you have two populations - one with a very high R (the dry tinder) and the other with a low R (the damp wood)? The initial (composite) R0 could appear to be 2 or 3 but as the dry tinder is consumed, the R drops below 1 without acquired immunity because immunity is innate for a large proportion of the population? Sorry for the naive questions but I'm trying to get my head around this.
A more parsimonious explanation would be the considerably more efficient immune systems of the young.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69 Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
Just calling it as it is..
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....
Tony Blair did not “give” the Scots anything. We took the powers. They were relinquished begrudgingly.
Indeed. He tried to wreck the referendum by adding that question on taxation. I don't suppose he expected the result!
I find that perspective a little hard to swallow, given that St Tony walked on water with a landslide majority at the time. He didn't need to do it, he wanted to. Don't forget that breaking the UK up into regions with their own legislatures was always a cornerstone of EU and New Labour policy. I think he just thought there would be Labour Scottish Governments forever.
I know I'm in danger of asking you to believe Tony Blair, but..
'Mr Blair admitted in his 2010 memoirs that he was “never a passionate believer” in devolution and he always thought creating a Scottish Parliament was a dangerous path.'
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
I have decided you are a parody. A brilliant parody, mind.
Does that make you a mere pastiche ?
I'm more of a failed spin off, I think.
Perhaps. You really need a team of writers to make that kind of thing work.
I may well have been unfair, as noted elsewhere, so apologies to Mr Blair if so. But my perception of the time was that the horse was being held back, in the hope the Scots would emasculate their own administration. .
By way of a PB pedantry: he wouldn't have expected Labour Scottish Gmts forever - only Labour-dominated unionist coalitions with the LDs, given the modified d'Hondt system which was openly admitted to have been put in place to prevent the SNP ever getting a majority.
The d’Hondt system is a disaster. Most undemocratic system imaginable. Hence I presume why it was so popular in New Labour.
It really is crap and means you get so many dross party drones that are rejected by the electorate but get seats due to the list system Murdo Fraser , rejected soundly by the electorate 7 times yet has had a seat and made well over £1M. The man is a moronic knuckle dragger.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69 Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
Just calling it as it is..
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....
Tony Blair did not “give” the Scots anything. We took the powers. They were relinquished begrudgingly.
Indeed. He tried to wreck the referendum by adding that question on taxation. I don't suppose he expected the result!
I find that perspective a little hard to swallow, given that St Tony walked on water with a landslide majority at the time. He didn't need to do it, he wanted to. Don't forget that breaking the UK up into regions with their own legislatures was always a cornerstone of EU and New Labour policy. I think he just thought there would be Labour Scottish Governments forever.
I may well have been unfair, as noted elsewhere, so apologies to Mr Blair if so. But my perception of the time was that the horse was being held back, in the hope the Scots would emasculate their own administration. .
By way of a PB pedantry: he wouldn't have expected Labour Scottish Gmts forever - only Labour-dominated unionist coalitions with the LDs, given the modified d'Hondt system which was openly admitted to have been put in place to prevent the SNP ever getting a majority.
Fair correction. And good for you for admitting to a possible misconception in your initial post. Personally I think if Tony wasn't for devolution there are a lot more effective ways he could have sabotaged it - just delaying 'constitutional matters' until his second term because 'things with public services after the Tories were worse than we could have imagined' being the simplest option. As it is he did it very early on when the Tories were in disarray after their landslide defeat.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
I have decided you are a parody. A brilliant parody, mind.
Does that make you a mere pastiche ?
I'm more of a failed spin off, I think.
Perhaps. You really need a team of writers to make that kind of thing work.
If only they could get Eadric, Byronic, Mysticrose and SeanT in a room together banging away on typewriters, think of the magic that could be produced!
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
So enlighten us by explaining what part the oil price played in the independence movement's economic forecasts.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
I have decided you are a parody. A brilliant parody, mind.
Does that make you a mere pastiche ?
I'm more of a failed spin off, I think.
Perhaps. You really need a team of writers to make that kind of thing work.
If only they could get Eadric, Byronic, Mysticrose and SeanT in a room together banging away on typewriters, think of the magic that could be produced!
If you put all the SeanTs in a room, and gave them a typewriter each, one of them would produce Shakespeare...
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
I have decided you are a parody. A brilliant parody, mind.
Does that make you a mere pastiche ?
I'm more of a failed spin off, I think.
Perhaps. You really need a team of writers to make that kind of thing work.
If only they could get Eadric, Byronic, Mysticrose and SeanT in a room together banging away on typewriters, think of the magic that could be produced!
I have a sneaking suspicion about Another Ex Tory too. Perhaps PB hasn't actually had a new member since 2017.
Alistair Campbell once ordered Robin Cook to make an instant decision - leave your wife, or leave your job.
He left his wife. Most brutal breakup imaginable (he told her as they were about to board the plane to go on holiday together) but saved the government.
Typical of how Campbell operated (and Cook, for the matter of that). Not nice, and not good. But such ruthlessness wasn’t needed here. A humble mea culpa, an undertaking to behave in future and an agreement to step back from all work to do with the pandemic and the story would have fizzled out in twelve hours.
We’ve now got to the stage where it has so damaged the government it is far from clear it can survive much longer, and where the government’s own policies have been fatally undermined and are being widely flouted.
All to protect a man so insecure he doesn’t have the courage to admit he’s made a mistake.
The way Campbell operated was abominable, especially towards the unfortunate Margaret Cook. But a little more of that decisiveness would have worked wonders.
For Campbell, media was everything. For Cummings, media is nothing. They operate differently.
I disagree. For Cummings, media is not nothing, it’s the enemy.
That may explain why he’s so reluctant to admit they have him bang to rights.
Alistair Campbell once ordered Robin Cook to make an instant decision - leave your wife, or leave your job.
He left his wife. Most brutal breakup imaginable (he told her as they were about to board the plane to go on holiday together) but saved the government.
Typical of how Campbell operated (and Cook, for the matter of that). Not nice, and not good. But such ruthlessness wasn’t needed here. A humble mea culpa, an undertaking to behave in future and an agreement to step back from all work to do with the pandemic and the story would have fizzled out in twelve hours.
We’ve now got to the stage where it has so damaged the government it is far from clear it can survive much longer, and where the government’s own policies have been fatally undermined and are being widely flouted.
All to protect a man so insecure he doesn’t have the courage to admit he’s made a mistake.
The way Campbell operated was abominable, especially towards the unfortunate Margaret Cook. But a little more of that decisiveness would have worked wonders.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
I have decided you are a parody. A brilliant parody, mind.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Just not sure he can be described as her partner when his wife and three children allege they knew nothing about the relationship, and are shattered
One amusing thing about this story is the way Justin instantly described her as beyond the pale for being an adulterer.
Strangely, this objection never seemed to apply to Corbyn...
I was never a Corbynite . and had I been presnted with clear evidence that he was an adulterer or fornicator I would have refused to vote for him in his constituency.
Why the constant obsession with what people you have never met do with their genitals?
Many churchgoers would be put off supporting such people.Doubtless Mary Whitehouse would have been such a person.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69 Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
Just calling it as it is..
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....
Tony Blair did not “give” the Scots anything. We took the powers. They were relinquished begrudgingly.
Indeed. He tried to wreck the referendum by adding that question on taxation. I don't suppose he expected the result!
I find that perspective a little hard to swallow, given that St Tony walked on water with a landslide majority at the time. He didn't need to do it, he wanted to. Don't forget that breaking the UK up into regions with their own legislatures was always a cornerstone of EU and New Labour policy. I think he just thought there would be Labour Scottish Governments forever.
I know I'm in danger of asking you to believe Tony Blair, but..
'Mr Blair admitted in his 2010 memoirs that he was “never a passionate believer” in devolution and he always thought creating a Scottish Parliament was a dangerous path.'
Easy thing to say with hindsight and Alex Salmond sitting in Bute House. If there are any contemporaneous accounts of this wise, prescient sense of foreboding (that lead to Tony campaigning in favour) I would be interested to read them.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Just not sure he can be described as her partner when his wife and three children allege they knew nothing about the relationship, and are shattered
One amusing thing about this story is the way Justin instantly described her as beyond the pale for being an adulterer.
Strangely, this objection never seemed to apply to Corbyn...
I was never a Corbynite . and had I been presnted with clear evidence that he was an adulterer or fornicator I would have refused to vote for him in his constituency.
Norwich isn’t part of his constituency.
As it happens I did not vote for his party anyway in 2019.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Just not sure he can be described as her partner when his wife and three children allege they knew nothing about the relationship, and are shattered
One amusing thing about this story is the way Justin instantly described her as beyond the pale for being an adulterer.
Strangely, this objection never seemed to apply to Corbyn...
I was never a Corbynite . and had I been presnted with clear evidence that he was an adulterer or fornicator I would have refused to vote for him in his constituency.
Norwich isn’t part of his constituency.
As it happens I did not vote for his party anyway in 2019.
Was that because he put his, er, ex-fornicatee in the Shadow Cabinet?
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Just not sure he can be described as her partner when his wife and three children allege they knew nothing about the relationship, and are shattered
One amusing thing about this story is the way Justin instantly described her as beyond the pale for being an adulterer.
Strangely, this objection never seemed to apply to Corbyn...
I was never a Corbynite . and had I been presnted with clear evidence that he was an adulterer or fornicator I would have refused to vote for him in his constituency.
Norwich isn’t part of his constituency.
As it happens I did not vote for his party anyway in 2019.
Was that because he put his, er, ex-fornicatee in the Shadow Cabinet?
No - I was not prepared to support a gender vetted candidate despite the seat being marginal.
I don't understand why there's such a strong link between being left-of-centre and being a strong supporter of the lockdown. It could be anti-libertarianism, but at one time the left was just as, if not more, libertarian than the right, in for example the 1960s and 1970s. At that time it was old-fashioned conservatives like Mary Whitehouse who were more likely to be anti-libertarian.
Could the missing link be concern for the well-being of others? Such concern is clearly missing in some parts of the political spectrum.
If it does, big test for the plod and Khan. Do they repeat the same mistakes as 2011, where they went far too softly softly for 2-3 days.
So, let me get this right. Someone dies in police custody in the USA, so a bunch of Brits are going to protest in London and antagonise British police?
Good luck to the Metropolitan boys in blue. Hopefully none of them get injured.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
When the Indyref happened, the possibility of the UK later voting to leave the EU (pretty sure it wouldn't have got over the line without those brave Scottish voters defying the prevailing orthodoxy), was already a possibility. An EUref was already being mooted by the Tories and the Lib Dems as far as I recall, and the threat of a Leave vote was something the 'Yes' Campaign used in their literature. So calling it a betrayal is rather a reinvention of history.
If it does, big test for the plod and Khan. Do they repeat the same mistakes as 2011, where they went far too softly softly for 2-3 days.
So, let me get this right. Someone dies in police custody in the USA, so a bunch of Brits are going to protest in London and antagonise British police?
Good luck to the Metropolitan boys in blue. Hopefully none of them get injured.
Bored morons and clueless SJWs
One good thing: the pubs are nearly all shut so it will be harder for the protestors to get hammered and start fighting as a result. Indeed they might be stoned (the royal parks reek of weed) which could calm things down
I don't understand why there's such a strong link between being left-of-centre and being a strong supporter of the lockdown. It could be anti-libertarianism, but at one time the left was just as, if not more, libertarian than the right, in for example the 1960s and 1970s. At that time it was old-fashioned conservatives like Mary Whitehouse who were more likely to be anti-libertarian.
Could the missing link be concern for the well-being of others? Such concern is clearly missing in some parts of the political spectrum.
They think it will bring down the government, or the economy, or stop Brexit. Or all three.
When the BLM protestors managed to shut London City Airport, the cops fed them cups of tea.
Then claimed that they couldn't cut the chains (that they had chained themselves up with and thrown away the keys) off, since the safety case for doing so, hadn't been done....
When the BLM protestors managed to shut London City Airport, the cops fed them cups of tea.
Then claimed that they couldn't cut the chains (that they had chained themselves up with and thrown away the keys) off, since the safety case for doing so, hadn't been done....
That lot of BLM were overwhelmingly laughable double barrelled white poshos, who spend their days cos-playing at being protesters.
If it does, big test for the plod and Khan. Do they repeat the same mistakes as 2011, where they went far too softly softly for 2-3 days.
So, let me get this right. Someone dies in police custody in the USA, so a bunch of Brits are going to protest in London and antagonise British police?
Good luck to the Metropolitan boys in blue. Hopefully none of them get injured.
It's what the rent-a-mob do...any excuse to wanting it to kick off.
After watching I presume terrible movies and having to endure crappy food in cramped cattle class for the past 19hrs, the astronauts are about to dock.
When the BLM protestors managed to shut London City Airport, the cops fed them cups of tea.
Then claimed that they couldn't cut the chains (that they had chained themselves up with and thrown away the keys) off, since the safety case for doing so, hadn't been done....
That lot of BLM were overwhelmingly laughable double barrelled white poshos, who spend their days cos-playing at being protesters.
LOL, posh white kids cos-playing as protestors.
Wait until they realise that the cops aren't cos-players, and their batons aren't made of toilet rolls.
My current theory is that London, the South East and East are approaching herd immunity for those currently making use of the new rules available for meeting in parks etc...
There are so many key workers and households with key/essential workers in them that have been exposed to the virus already that it has made the young and healthy immune in the same way that Germany first saw a huge outbreak among the young which helped them avoid a huge amount of death among vulnerable groups.
My current theory is that for younger people their innate immunity system protects them so that their acquired immunity system doesn't come into play. So they have no anti-bodies and do not show up as previously infected in serology tests. But they are still part of the firewall for transmission.
NB. I'm not medical. I make it up as I go along. But I like my scenario. It means it fizzles out.
You reckon they show up as infected in antigen tests but don't produce any antibodies?
No - the opposite. They don't show up as infected in antigen tests because igG antibodies are not produced. Their innate immune system deals with their viral dose in the first day or two and the acquired immune system doesn't need to come into play. They are "damp wood" in the conflagration that rips through the dry tinder (old and compromised) but doesn't allow the smouldering embers to flare up again except in isolated hot spots that are quickly extinguished using track, trace, isolate.
The antigen tests are for the virus, not the antibody.
oops. I said I was not medical. If their innate immune system deals with the virus in a couple of days and they have an antigen test in those days then I guess the virus would turn up. I'm guessing the antigen test doesn't require anitibodies - just bits of virus.
The reason I ask is because if you don't think they would show up in antigen tests, and you want to believe they are a large percentage of the population (say 80% or 90%) then you have the problem that to give an apparent R number of 2-3 you would need the real R0 (for propagation into a population without immunity) to be 15-20, which is really not believable.
Obviously in the circumstance you describe they wouldn't show up in most of the testing that has been done so far, only in random testing, and only if it caught them in a very narrow window of opportunity.
Unfortunately, this idea of widespread innate immunity doesn't make sense. I wish it did.
Yes, unfortunately it is quite unlikely to save us.
The depressing thing of the week for me was that only 7% of the first survey showed antibodies. A lot depends on the sampling, but if true that means we are only 10% of the way to "herd immunity". At that rate, 60 000 dead means the initial predictions of half a million dead are not far off.
Antibody testing of staff has started in my hospital last week, with all staff to be covered by the end of the month. In my Trust that is 11 000 staff. That would be a massive sample nationally.
NHS staff antibodies would skew greater than the population at large I'd have thought.
I would expect so too, but it will give quite a good match with symptoms, and absences, as all absences for self isolation are recorded by the Trust.
If you really want a gloomy picture then remember antibodies are not always a good thing. There is also the phenomenon of Antibody Disease Enhancement. This is recognised in certain viruses, and potentially has a role in Covid-19. This is one of the hazards of a poor vaccine:
Absolutely inevitable that an idiot like Hitchens would take a look at that and instantly howl that the lockdown was a mistake.
That if we hadn't done it here, it would somehow, magically, have all gone away. That the massive decrease in people interacting has had zero effect on the spread of an infectious respiratory aerosol-borne disease. That nations with far less in the way of people living on top of each other and a culture of greater distancing and far less physical connectivity MUST be immediately comparable to us rather, you know, their immediate neighbours. Who have had a vastly worse outcome thanks to doing something a little bit closer to what Hitchens wanted us to do (but had we done that, he would certainly have been still screaming about "Muh Freedoms" being violated because he can't do whatever he likes and fuck the consequences to anyone else.
It comes to the point with Hitchens and Haimes and their keenest acolytes that you have to conclude that they are beyond self-deluding. They must know the repercussions of what they're proposing - insisting, rather.
But they are so self-centred and uncaring of the effects on others that they don't care.
Seriously - what do they think would have happened without drastic social distancing? Do they truly think the course of the infection would have been exactly the same? Or even less damaging? Do they think that it's all governed by - I don't know - the movement of the spheres, or some ineffable mystical arcania?
It's a respiratory virus. It's conveyed by aerosol droplets. These are passed from person to person. If they cannot be passed from person to person, or that transmission is reduced or limited, the spread of the virus is limited. This ain't hidden arcane knowledge. It's not magic, or rocket science.
If the transmission is less limited, it will spread more, and faster. Had we not engaged in widespread social distancing, our infection rate would have been far higher. The death toll, likewise.
If the lockdown was so unnecessary, then why has it been taking so bleeding long for the infection rate and the death toll to subside to the extent it has done? Since the peak in deaths, the R-value implied by the 7-day average in daily death toll has been consistently between 0.75 and 0.88 for England. How much higher would it have been if we'd done as Hitchens demands? Or is that irrelevant? Because it doesn't have to be much higher to be skyrocketing.
On and on he chunters about his freedoms and how we're all serfs for not doing as we please and screw everyone else (as if laws and regulations circumscribing our actions from harming others haven't been a fixture of every goddamn society since the year dot).
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69 Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
Just calling it as it is..
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....
Tony Blair did not “give” the Scots anything. We took the powers. They were relinquished begrudgingly.
Indeed. He tried to wreck the referendum by adding that question on taxation. I don't suppose he expected the result!
I find that perspective a little hard to swallow, given that St Tony walked on water with a landslide majority at the time. He didn't need to do it, he wanted to. Don't forget that breaking the UK up into regions with their own legislatures was always a cornerstone of EU and New Labour policy. I think he just thought there would be Labour Scottish Governments forever.
I know I'm in danger of asking you to believe Tony Blair, but..
'Mr Blair admitted in his 2010 memoirs that he was “never a passionate believer” in devolution and he always thought creating a Scottish Parliament was a dangerous path.'
Easy thing to say with hindsight and Alex Salmond sitting in Bute House. If there are any contemporaneous accounts of this wise, prescient sense of foreboding (that lead to Tony campaigning in favour) I would be interested to read them.
He's hardly going to say at the time 'this is a plank of our landslide winning manifesto, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it'. My impression *at the time* was that Blair was lukewarm but he couldn't gainsay passionate, influential Scottish members (yes children, there used to be unicorns) of the PLP such as Cook, Dewar and even Brown who actually believed in devolution.
After watching I presume terrible movies and having to endure crappy food in cramped cattle class for the past 19hrs, the astronauts are about to dock.
This is awesome to watch. Hope they got the right docking connector!
I don't understand why there's such a strong link between being left-of-centre and being a strong supporter of the lockdown. It could be anti-libertarianism, but at one time the left was just as, if not more, libertarian than the right, in for example the 1960s and 1970s. At that time it was old-fashioned conservatives like Mary Whitehouse who were more likely to be anti-libertarian.
Isn't this just a class thing? Labourite Lefties are MORE likely to be middle class, urban, professional, or they are public sector, or students. As such they are insulated from the worst horrors of lockdown. Teachers will not get laid off, nor will doctors.
North London writers can work from their homes. They're probably enjoying the lockdown sun. Posh wankers.
Tory voters are somewhat more likely to be self employed (no furlough for them), in the private sector (facing redundancy if lockdown persists) and so on.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69 Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
Just calling it as it is..
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....
Tony Blair did not “give” the Scots anything. We took the powers. They were relinquished begrudgingly.
Indeed. He tried to wreck the referendum by adding that question on taxation. I don't suppose he expected the result!
I find that perspective a little hard to swallow, given that St Tony walked on water with a landslide majority at the time. He didn't need to do it, he wanted to. Don't forget that breaking the UK up into regions with their own legislatures was always a cornerstone of EU and New Labour policy. I think he just thought there would be Labour Scottish Governments forever.
I know I'm in danger of asking you to believe Tony Blair, but..
'Mr Blair admitted in his 2010 memoirs that he was “never a passionate believer” in devolution and he always thought creating a Scottish Parliament was a dangerous path.'
Easy thing to say with hindsight and Alex Salmond sitting in Bute House. If there are any contemporaneous accounts of this wise, prescient sense of foreboding (that lead to Tony campaigning in favour) I would be interested to read them.
Hmm, thinking about it, Mr Blair had a triple series of results - some pros and cons in each:
1. Scots say no to devolution. |Mr Blair keeps all power. 2. Scots say yes to devolution but no to tax powers - great, Potemkin Village erected, no real devolution, lotsa jobs for the SLAB gals and boys and their LD besties independent of any Tory victory in UK. 3. Scots say yes to both - not much more real devolution, else ditto ...
Mr Salmond was, as Mr Luckyguy implies, never supposed to win a majority .,..
After watching I presume terrible movies and having to endure crappy food in cramped cattle class for the past 19hrs, the astronauts are about to dock.
This is awesome to watch. Hope they got the right docking connector!
I may well have been unfair, as noted elsewhere, so apologies to Mr Blair if so. But my perception of the time was that the horse was being held back, in the hope the Scots would emasculate their own administration. .
By way of a PB pedantry: he wouldn't have expected Labour Scottish Gmts forever - only Labour-dominated unionist coalitions with the LDs, given the modified d'Hondt system which was openly admitted to have been put in place to prevent the SNP ever getting a majority.
The d’Hondt system is a disaster. Most undemocratic system imaginable. Hence I presume why it was so popular in New Labour.
It really is crap and means you get so many dross party drones that are rejected by the electorate but get seats due to the list system Murdo Fraser , rejected soundly by the electorate 7 times yet has had a seat and made well over £1M. The man is a moronic knuckle dragger.
There's nothing wrong with d'Hondt unless you weight the votes cast for the party rather than individuals as counting in the totals at the top of the list. If you just use the party votes to calculate number of seats and then allocate the seats won by the number who voted for each candidate down the list (as some but not all Danish parties do), then you have a beauiful marriage of proportionality and individual voter choice. You generally liked Labour but preferred Balls to Corbyn, or vice versa? You were a Tory but didn't think much of May and hankered for a true Brexiteer? You can cast your vote as a precise reflection of your views. It's a much better system than STV, because it isn't biased to the most-transfer friendly candidates (unless you think that distortion of democracy is a good thing).
For example, if Sinn Fein or the DUP gets 20% of the vote, they'll get 20% of the seats under d'Hondt. Under STV they'll probably get fewer, because few of the other 80% will transfer to them on later ballots. STV disadvantages people outside the mainstream - it's a feature, not a bug - and in that way is, I think, not really democratic.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules eff
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of coust be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
*looks at the front page of the Mail on Sunday*
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
It turns out the guy who made up the story about seeing Cummings later in Barnard Castle - as a ‘joke’ - carefully altered a running app to make it seem he was present when he wasn’t. That is to say: he fabricated evidence.
Anyone who believes this story is just a random series of eye witnesses unearthed by the Guardian is an idiot.
So you are saying Cummings is now making it up?
Look at it another way. Look at it through the media prism. Look at the Guardian and the Milly Dowler phone hacking scandal
How did the Guardian employ that story? They started with an excellent scoop - but with a juicy falsehood in the middle. Some extra black pepper on the strawberries.
They used this confection of truths and a lie to generate widespread outrage, across politics and public debate, and they kept the ball rolling for weeks, until the News of the World, owned by their hated enemy Rupert Murdoch, actually closed.
They took down their opponent.
But that wasn't their ultimate agenda. Their ultimate agenda was to stop Murdoch taking over BSkyB and creating a new rival that might crush them. This takeover was about to happen, just as the Guardian dropped their bomb. What a coincidence.
The Guardian succeeded in that too. They stopped the takeover
The Guardian is following the very same pattern here (and why not, it works brilliantly). Take a real scoop, time it correctly, juice it up with some initial lies, get public outrage to do the rest.
The proximate cause is to takedown Cummings as they destroyed the News of the World. The ultimate goal is to hinder Brexit as they thwarted the BSkyB takeover.
When you are getting more furious at a paper for reporting on the hacking of a dead girls phone than the paper who actually hacked the dead girls phone you need to take a deep long look at your self.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UK
England voting for Brexit was a betrayal of all Better Together’s promises. You won on a false case.
Whereas the independence campaigners were completely honest I suppose ?
Remind us again of their economic projection and how the oil price featured in it.
There is never any shortage of electoral promises which turn out to be different to the reality.
Cretin, you obviously would be unable to differentiate an elephant from a giraffe if that is the way your twisted mind thinks.
I have decided you are a parody. A brilliant parody, mind.
After watching I presume terrible movies and having to endure crappy food in cramped cattle class for the past 19hrs, the astronauts are about to dock.
This is awesome to watch. Hope they got the right docking connector!
Amazing how it gets to look more like 2001 A Space Odyssey every time ...
The big difference with this mission is the quality of the live images coming back, an order of magnitude better than anything we’ve seen previously from space missions.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69 Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
Just calling it as it is..
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....
Tony Blair did not “give” the Scots anything. We took the powers. They were relinquished begrudgingly.
Indeed. He tried to wreck the referendum by adding that question on taxation. I don't suppose he expected the result!
I find that perspective a little hard to swallow, given that St Tony walked on water with a landslide majority at the time. He didn't need to do it, he wanted to. Don't forget that breaking the UK up into regions with their own legislatures was always a cornerstone of EU and New Labour policy. I think he just thought there would be Labour Scottish Governments forever.
I know I'm in danger of asking you to believe Tony Blair, but..
'Mr Blair admitted in his 2010 memoirs that he was “never a passionate believer” in devolution and he always thought creating a Scottish Parliament was a dangerous path.'
Easy thing to say with hindsight and Alex Salmond sitting in Bute House. If there are any contemporaneous accounts of this wise, prescient sense of foreboding (that lead to Tony campaigning in favour) I would be interested to read them.
He's hardly going to say at the time 'this is a plank of our landslide winning manifesto, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it'. My impression *at the time* was that Blair was lukewarm but he couldn't gainsay passionate, influential Scottish members (yes children, there used to be unicorns) of the PLP such as Cook, Dewar and even Brown who actually believed in devolution.
I am with you 100% on New Labour (and old Tories incidentally) having influential Scottish figures. My argument to a t. I hope one day they will have more of them again, but that will entail Scotland tiring of returning Ian Blackford and Mhairi Black etc. You can't have influential Scottish MPs if you don't have any Scottish MPs.
However, you are asking us to believe that Tony Blair wanted to lose a referendum to the Tories at that stage of his career, and gamed the question to make his own party's defeat more likely. I find that supposition impossible to support. Given that New Labour was spending all over the shop via PPPs at that time, I suspect the reference to taxation was because he wanted a blank cheque. It would lend extra weight to a high tax high spend agenda in Scotland - undermining any claim from the Tories that the public only supported Labour because it promised to stick to Tory spending plans.
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priority
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69 Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rights
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
Just calling it as it is..
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....
Tony Blair did not “give” the Scots anything. We took the powers. They were relinquished begrudgingly.
Indeed. He tried to wreck the referendum by adding that question on taxation. I don't suppose he expected the result!
I find that perspective a little hard to swallow, given that St Tony walked on water with a landslide majority at the time. He didn't need to do it, he wanted to. Don't forget that breaking the UK up into regions with their own legislatures was always a cornerstone of EU and New Labour policy. I think he just thought there would be Labour Scottish Governments forever.
I know I'm in danger of asking you to believe Tony Blair, but..
'Mr Blair admitted in his 2010 memoirs that he was “never a passionate believer” in devolution and he always thought creating a Scottish Parliament was a dangerous path.'
Easy thing to say with hindsight and Alex Salmond sitting in Bute House. If there are any contemporaneous accounts of this wise, prescient sense of foreboding (that lead to Tony campaigning in favour) I would be interested to read them.
Hmm, thinking about it, Mr Blair had a triple series of results - some pros and cons in each:
1. Scots say no to devolution. |Mr Blair keeps all power. 2. Scots say yes to devolution but no to tax powers - great, Potemkin Village erected, no real devolution, lotsa jobs for the SLAB gals and boys and their LD besties independent of any Tory victory in UK. 3. Scots say yes to both - not much more real devolution, else ditto ...
Mr Salmond was, as Mr Luckyguy implies, never supposed to win a majority .,..
Labour took Scotland totally for granted (as they do Wales), on that we can agree. And in a different way, so did the Tories. I would even go so far as to say that a strong regional party (I don't say that to insult Scotland's nationhood, merely because that best describes a party that doesn't stand in all seats) fighting elections was an inevitable thing and is in many ways a good thing.
Where we differ is on the need to break up the UK to get to a promised land. I think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is the SNP's achilles heel in delivering good Government for Scotland, because everything is done in campaign mode for indy.
I could have sworn a labour MP had been caught breaking lockdown rules for some nookie with a married man and had to resign...but not on bbc website, so couldn't have happened.
Impossible. The BBC regards the violation of lockdown by public figures to be of such critical national importance that their flagship news programme will ditch all pretence of 'impartiality' to smear any suspected perpetrator.
So if it's not even on their website, it must have never happened at all...
Hidden away on the live feed, no mention on front page.
“Not on the website” you said
Standard BBC, hide away story where 90% never will see it and still be able to claim they covered it. Daily Mirror phone hacking being a classic example.
This story is a according to BBC editors less important than Pret renegotiating their rents.
She is an elected representative, was in a junior position in opposition, not making rules eff
If you fail to appreciate the differences in newsworthiness here then I cannot help you.
There's only one reason why Cummings is still a story into its second week in the news cycle: Cummings was the architect of Brexit.
No. There is only one reason that it's still news, and that's because he's refused to come clean and so people are still trying to find out what his real reasons for behaving like a certifiable lunatic are.
Personally, I think they're overthinking this.
Lol. It now turns out the architect of the story is a Remainer Blairite peer in The Lords
How surprising
No, the architect of the story is Dominic Cummings, who believes rules do not apply to him.
If you think otherwise, what offer will you make me for this rather natty bridge I have for sale?
‘An anti-Brexit Labour peer who was one of Tony Blair’s closest allies passed on information to help expose Dominic Cummings’s alleged breach of the virus lockdown, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Former Durham MP Hilary Armstrong is being feted by Labour colleagues for her role in revealing that the No 10 aide had travelled 260 miles from his London home to stay near his parents in the North East.’
Said all along this story was driven, at its core, by embittered Remainers. And so it is
Eadric, how do I put this?
If he hadn't done it, would there have been any information to pass?
Of coust be done NOW, hence the timing of the scoop
*looks at the front page of the Mail on Sunday*
No, I can’t understand why one of the Mirror’s sources wishes to remain anonymous.
It turns out the guy who made up the story about seeing Cummings later in Barnard Castle - as a ‘joke’ - carefully altered a running app to make it seem he was present when he wasn’t. That is to say: he fabricated evidence.
Anyone who believes this story is just a random series of eye witnesses unearthed by the Guardian is an idiot.
So you are saying Cummings is now making it up?
Look at it another way. Look at it through the media prism. Look at the Guardian and the Milly Dowler phone hacking scandal
How did the Guardian employ that story? They started with an excellent scoop - but with a juicy falsehood in the middle. Some extra black pepper on the strawberries.
They used this confection of truths and a lie to generate widespread outrage, across politics and public debate, and they kept the ball rolling for weeks, until the News of the World, owned by their hated enemy Rupert Murdoch, actually closed.
They took down their opponent.
But that wasn't their ultimate agenda. Their ultimate agenda was to stop Murdoch taking over BSkyB and creating a new rival that might crush them. This takeover was about to happen, just as the Guardian dropped their bomb. What a coincidence.
The Guardian succeeded in that too. They stopped the takeover
The Guardian is following the very same pattern here (and why not, it works brilliantly). Take a real scoop, time it correctly, juice it up with some initial lies, get public outrage to do the rest.
The proximate cause is to takedown Cummings as they destroyed the News of the World. The ultimate goal is to hinder Brexit as they thwarted the BSkyB takeover.
When you are getting more furious at a paper for reporting on the hacking of a dead girls phone than the paper who actually hacked the dead girls phone you need to take a deep long look at your self.
To Barnard Castle you go.
I noted before, the Cummings case immediately made me think of the NotW hacking Milly Dowler's phone, in that both filled me with a cold fury like nothing else. The moral failure of people who seek to exonerate or justify the actions of either is abhorrent. They are utterly out of step with decent opinion in this country.
Comments
It links into the 'get some immigrants to keep the wages down mentality'.
As I've been predicting for a long time, the 2020 elections in the US are going to be an absolute sh!t-show of fake news and negative campaigning from all sides, with Google and Facebook in the middle profiting from the mess. I'm happy now to add Twitter to the club. No matter who wins, there will almost certainly be bipartisan support for changes to social media law.
By way of a PB pedantry: he wouldn't have expected Labour Scottish Gmts forever - only Labour-dominated unionist coalitions with the LDs, given the modified d'Hondt system which was openly admitted to have been put in place to prevent the SNP ever getting a majority.
That may explain why he’s so reluctant to admit they have him bang to rights.
So I shall go and console myself by doing some marking.
Have a good afternoon.
'Mr Blair admitted in his 2010 memoirs that he was “never a passionate believer” in devolution and he always thought creating a Scottish Parliament was a dangerous path.'
https://tinyurl.com/y83whc2m
You really need a team of writers to make that kind of thing work.
Anyway, like @ydoethur , I have stuff to do.
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1267077962991616000?s=20
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-31/hundreds-gather-in-trafalgar-square-to-show-solidarity-with-us-protesters-following-death-of-george-floyd/
Closing schools unnecessarily because you have the situation under control is a relatively nice problem for Norway to have.
So even with the weekend lag that's a good sign.
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1267085795925659650
Good luck to the Metropolitan boys in blue. Hopefully none of them get injured.
Obvious answer is obvious.
Then claimed that they couldn't cut the chains (that they had chained themselves up with and thrown away the keys) off, since the safety case for doing so, hadn't been done....
And they say viruses don't do irony.
Wait until they realise that the cops aren't cos-players, and their batons aren't made of toilet rolls.
If you really want a gloomy picture then remember antibodies are not always a good thing. There is also the phenomenon of Antibody Disease Enhancement. This is recognised in certain viruses, and potentially has a role in Covid-19. This is one of the hazards of a poor vaccine:
https://smw.ch/article/doi/smw.2020.20249
That if we hadn't done it here, it would somehow, magically, have all gone away. That the massive decrease in people interacting has had zero effect on the spread of an infectious respiratory aerosol-borne disease. That nations with far less in the way of people living on top of each other and a culture of greater distancing and far less physical connectivity MUST be immediately comparable to us rather, you know, their immediate neighbours. Who have had a vastly worse outcome thanks to doing something a little bit closer to what Hitchens wanted us to do (but had we done that, he would certainly have been still screaming about "Muh Freedoms" being violated because he can't do whatever he likes and fuck the consequences to anyone else.
It comes to the point with Hitchens and Haimes and their keenest acolytes that you have to conclude that they are beyond self-deluding. They must know the repercussions of what they're proposing - insisting, rather.
But they are so self-centred and uncaring of the effects on others that they don't care.
Seriously - what do they think would have happened without drastic social distancing? Do they truly think the course of the infection would have been exactly the same? Or even less damaging? Do they think that it's all governed by - I don't know - the movement of the spheres, or some ineffable mystical arcania?
It's a respiratory virus. It's conveyed by aerosol droplets. These are passed from person to person.
If they cannot be passed from person to person, or that transmission is reduced or limited, the spread of the virus is limited. This ain't hidden arcane knowledge. It's not magic, or rocket science.
If the transmission is less limited, it will spread more, and faster.
Had we not engaged in widespread social distancing, our infection rate would have been far higher. The death toll, likewise.
If the lockdown was so unnecessary, then why has it been taking so bleeding long for the infection rate and the death toll to subside to the extent it has done? Since the peak in deaths, the R-value implied by the 7-day average in daily death toll has been consistently between 0.75 and 0.88 for England. How much higher would it have been if we'd done as Hitchens demands? Or is that irrelevant? Because it doesn't have to be much higher to be skyrocketing.
On and on he chunters about his freedoms and how we're all serfs for not doing as we please and screw everyone else (as if laws and regulations circumscribing our actions from harming others haven't been a fixture of every goddamn society since the year dot).
Fuck me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIZsnKGV8TE
1. Scots say no to devolution. |Mr Blair keeps all power.
2. Scots say yes to devolution but no to tax powers - great, Potemkin Village erected, no real devolution, lotsa jobs for the SLAB gals and boys and their LD besties independent of any Tory victory in UK.
3. Scots say yes to both - not much more real devolution, else ditto ...
Mr Salmond was, as Mr Luckyguy implies, never supposed to win a majority .,..
For example, if Sinn Fein or the DUP gets 20% of the vote, they'll get 20% of the seats under d'Hondt. Under STV they'll probably get fewer, because few of the other 80% will transfer to them on later ballots. STV disadvantages people outside the mainstream - it's a feature, not a bug - and in that way is, I think, not really democratic.
To Barnard Castle you go.
However, you are asking us to believe that Tony Blair wanted to lose a referendum to the Tories at that stage of his career, and gamed the question to make his own party's defeat more likely. I find that supposition impossible to support. Given that New Labour was spending all over the shop via PPPs at that time, I suspect the reference to taxation was because he wanted a blank cheque. It would lend extra weight to a high tax high spend agenda in Scotland - undermining any claim from the Tories that the public only supported Labour because it promised to stick to Tory spending plans.
Where we differ is on the need to break up the UK to get to a promised land. I think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is the SNP's achilles heel in delivering good Government for Scotland, because everything is done in campaign mode for indy.