Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019
Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense
Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority
I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated
The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.
So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.
Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.
For a lot of the northern seats Labour is being punished for their running of local councils that had their budgets destroyed by Austerity and Osbourne changing the rules on council tax...
Seems unlikely to me. Plenty of councils are run in perpetuity by a single party through good times and bad, even when nationally the party gets a kicking, and even if the local area still endlessly suffers the same problems.
Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included
That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.
Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.
Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is
Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age
It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.
However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.
Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.
Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.
As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.
No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so
There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.
Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.
If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100
Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.
GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.
(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)
Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.
I do think the testiness of Corbyn showed much of his true character. Its certainly true that he was not someone who had spent his time grasping for power all his career, and he had a rather pleasant and mild demeanour which is admirable to a degree, but his supposed humility I never quite bought.
He was so self righteous, so clearly irritated when pressed, so so angry and simply not competent and yet I think quite vain. Not in the same way as Boris whose vanity reveals in other ways, but in how the most important thing seems to be his own image and purity, not achieving things.
This reads like a review of PMQs...
Bereft of intellectual weight, with nothing much in his head and painfully conscious of the deficiency, BoZo's options were to lean heavily on unctuous self-righteousness or, when that failed, to lash out. Unable to provide good reasons, or any reasons, for his decisions, he simply acted with erratic impunity and got instantly testy if anyone questioned his authority.
BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.
Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.
I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"
I think makes sense. Keir is fixing an image as politically very different to Corbyn without yet changing policy much, through competence, tone and some appropriate gestures. No need to go on the front foot against Corbyn. If he does something expulsion worthy all the better but just wait and ease him and his cohorts out. Corbyn himself might never go but his followers will.
It is truly remarkable, considering we are told Corbyn is such a nice and humble man (he does seem like hed be a nice person to talk to) just how viscerally so many MPs disliked him or distrusted his leadership after knowing him for so long.
Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included
That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.
Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.
Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is
Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age
It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.
However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.
Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.
Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.
As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.
No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so
There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.
Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.
If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100
Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.
GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.
(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)
Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.
Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK
Come now, a federal UK is about as plausible as a chocolate SpaceX launchpad until England is broken up into more appropriate chunks, which the English wil never accept especially in their current mood (and under Tory domination, though this time the SNP could and would intervene in the vote as it would pertain to a UK wide matter, which would give the Tories more excuse for malice and bile). We discussed all this - including the return of the A/S Heptarchy - back in 2013-2014 and pretty much concluded that the only stable states for Scotland in the UK are as a colony under the rule of a Tory satrap, as when Messrs Forsyth and Rifkind were i/c, or as an independent state.
Betfair has added Nadja West to the market. There is no obvious reason for her inclusion other than some cynical layer asked Betfair to add her name but what do I know? Perhaps she is BFF with Joe.
She does have a compelling biography but no obvious link to politics that I can see from her Wikipedia page. Female, Black, orphan who rose to become Surgeon General of the US Army, from which position she has just retired.
In case anyone thinks role models do not matter, or that Wikipedia is not written and edited by nerds: She has claimed an early, positive influence was seeing a black, female character (Uhura) on the bridge of Star Trek's USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadja_West
I do think the testiness of Corbyn showed much of his true character. Its certainly true that he was not someone who had spent his time grasping for power all his career, and he had a rather pleasant and mild demeanour which is admirable to a degree, but his supposed humility I never quite bought.
He was so self righteous, so clearly irritated when pressed, so so angry and simply not competent and yet I think quite vain. Not in the same way as Boris whose vanity reveals in other ways, but in how the most important thing seems to be his own image and purity, not achieving things.
This reads like a review of PMQs...
Bereft of intellectual weight, with nothing much in his head and painfully conscious of the deficiency, BoZo's options were to lean heavily on unctuous self-righteousness or, when that failed, to lash out. Unable to provide good reasons, or any reasons, for his decisions, he simply acted with erratic impunity and got instantly testy if anyone questioned his authority.
Yes, but in a discussion about Corbin whataboutBoris is an issue for another day.
Clearly Corbyn was a factor but then he was also a factor in 2017 too, delivering Brexit was the key change from 2017 to 2019
Sorry but Corbyn was the principal driver as evidenced by many polls and even just common sense
Brexit was the second issue, and add both together equals an 80 seat majority
I very much doubt that result or those circumstances will ever be repeated
The other thing to remember is that a very large number of dud (Pidcock) or superannuated (Skinner) MPs have now lost their seats. Seats that in some cases they were parachuted into against the wishes of the constituency party and then more or less ignored.
So next time in those seats there will be younger, more ambitious and probably more determined candidates under no illusion that they can take voters for granted.
Will that help Labour retake them? Possibly, although it has to be said the example of Mansfield, which has a dud Tory MP whose majority skyrocketed, isn’t encouraging for Labour.
For a lot of the northern seats Labour is being punished for their running of local councils that had their budgets destroyed by Austerity and Osbourne changing the rules on council tax...
Seems unlikely to me. Plenty of councils are run in perpetuity by a single party through good times and bad, even when nationally the party gets a kicking, and even if the local area still endlessly suffers the same problems.
Teesside is a prime example of what I'm talking about - the Red Wall now has either Tory or Independent council leadership with a Tory mayor. So it was obvious what the election result was going to be...
Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included
That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.
Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.
Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is
Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age
It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.
However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.
Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.
Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.
As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.
No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so
There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.
Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.
If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100
Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.
GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.
(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)
Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.
Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK
Come now, a federal UK is about as plausible as a chocolate SpaceX launchpad until England is broken up into more appropriate chunks, which the English wil never accept especially in their current mood (and under Tory domination, though this time the SNP could and would intervene in the vote as it would pertain to a UK wide matter, which would give the Tories more excuse for malice and bile). We discussed all this - including the return of the A/S Heptarchy - back in 2013-2014 and pretty much concluded that the only stable states for Scotland in the UK are as a colony under the rule of a Tory satrap, as when Messrs Forsyth and Rifkind were i/c, or as an independent state.
Boris is PM because of his majority in England, if Starmer becomes PM though it will almost certainly be because of the support of Scottish and Welsh MPs.
Very hard to see Starmer winning a majority of English MPs given the Tories have a majority of 154 in England, possible to see him becoming UK PM though still given the Tories have a UK majority of 80 and if he does he will have to govern therefore for the whole UK whatever England alone thinks
Are you new to this whole politics malarkey? Parties are always emailing their lists asking for fundraising. Would you have been so snarkey to Cameron? I doubt it.
Dont american presidents spend most of their time fundraising? Our politicians are probably hard working by comparison.
Boris has not sent a begging letter. Well, OK, he has but its main purpose is to harvest email addresses and other contact details to further engage anyone who responds. If CCHQ just wanted the money, it could raise millions in a single donation from a wealthy friend, whether with a British or Russian accent.
Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included
That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.
Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.
Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is
Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age
It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.
However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.
Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.
Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.
As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.
No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so
There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.
Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.
If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100
Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.
GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.
(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)
Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.
Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK
Come now, a federal UK is about as plausible as a chocolate SpaceX launchpad until England is broken up into more appropriate chunks, which the English wil never accept especially in their current mood (and under Tory domination, though this time the SNP could and would intervene in the vote as it would pertain to a UK wide matter, which would give the Tories more excuse for malice and bile). We discussed all this - including the return of the A/S Heptarchy - back in 2013-2014 and pretty much concluded that the only stable states for Scotland in the UK are as a colony under the rule of a Tory satrap, as when Messrs Forsyth and Rifkind were i/c, or as an independent state.
A Tory satrap? Now we're talking! How many parasangs is Scotland from North to South?
Composite PMI of 57.1 in June. That's surprisingly good, I has it pencilled in at 54 with lower expectations in services for sure.
Obviously this is growing from a low base, however, there is now mounting evidence that there is a V shaped recovery underway, a second lockdown will severely set us back. The US is proof of this.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included
That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.
Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.
Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is
Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age
It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.
However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.
Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.
Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.
As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.
No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so
There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.
Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.
If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100
Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.
GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.
(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)
Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.
Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK
Come now, a federal UK is about as plausible as a chocolate SpaceX launchpad until England is broken up into more appropriate chunks, which the English wil never accept especially in their current mood (and under Tory domination, though this time the SNP could and would intervene in the vote as it would pertain to a UK wide matter, which would give the Tories more excuse for malice and bile). We discussed all this - including the return of the A/S Heptarchy - back in 2013-2014 and pretty much concluded that the only stable states for Scotland in the UK are as a colony under the rule of a Tory satrap, as when Messrs Forsyth and Rifkind were i/c, or as an independent state.
A Tory satrap? Now we're talking! How many parasangs is Scotland from North to South?
About 73, but you'd need to check with the King of Kings's court astronomer. Probably a Greek chap anyway.
(The first time I heard the wortd since Greek lessons at school was when a Northumberland friend was complaining about the attitude of central government to the locals in his area.)
Composite PMI of 57.1 in June. That's surprisingly good, I has it pencilled in at 54 with lower expectations in services for sure.
Obviously this is growing from a low base, however, there is now mounting evidence that there is a V shaped recovery underway, a second lockdown will severely set us back. The US is proof of this.
Absolutely agreed. We need to at all costs avoid a second lockdown. That means being smart, wear a mask etc.
We need to keep our liberties. If that means wearing a cloth mask then do it ... It's nothing compared to a second lockdown.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.
The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.
I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.
The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.
No, our current position is to make no commitment to a LPF as per government policy. It's a logical 0/10 position to take when the opposing side are at the 10/10 position.
It must have changed then as we were suggesting Canada's precedence.
But yes if we have dug in at the other extreme due to their intransigence then it is presumably to be able to meet in the middle (about where we started) and not an intention to die in the ditch for nothing.
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
Frost seems to be doing a very good job, in stark contrast to his predecessor. If we get a deal, it won’t be almost entirely on the EU’s terms as the last one was, and it seems we’re willing to walk out and negotiate again with no-deal as the status quo next year - which would put much more pressure on all sides to compromise.
Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included
That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.
Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.
Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is
Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age
It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.
However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.
Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.
Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.
As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.
No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so
There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.
Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.
If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100
Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.
GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.
(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)
Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.
Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK
A federal UK is probably the desired end point for most, including the PM. Needs an English Parliament though.
Betfair has added Nadja West to the market. There is no obvious reason for her inclusion other than some cynical layer asked Betfair to add her name but what do I know? Perhaps she is BFF with Joe.
She does have a compelling biography but no obvious link to politics that I can see from her Wikipedia page. Female, Black, orphan who rose to become Surgeon General of the US Army, from which position she has just retired.
In case anyone thinks role models do not matter, or that Wikipedia is not written and edited by nerds: She has claimed an early, positive influence was seeing a black, female character (Uhura) on the bridge of Star Trek's USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadja_West
Impressive CV - para wings and combat medic badge. The latter will be handy when JB keels over on the Resolute desk.
BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.
Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.
I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"
I think makes sense. Keir is fixing an image as politically very different to Corbyn without yet changing policy much, through competence, tone and some appropriate gestures. No need to go on the front foot against Corbyn. If he does something expulsion worthy all the better but just wait and ease him and his cohorts out. Corbyn himself might never go but his followers will.
It is truly remarkable, considering we are told Corbyn is such a nice and humble man (he does seem like hed be a nice person to talk to) just how viscerally so many MPs disliked him or distrusted his leadership after knowing him for so long.
Yes, it is important that there is no purge, but if a few hardliners resign as unable to accept that under Corbyn systemic antisemitism happened, that is a victory. If others repent and reform that is fine too.
I suspect the former DPP will get the technicalities right, so that any Corbynite suing the party merely bankrupts themselves.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
I think the general point is fair. There may be debate about the specific amount of impact he personally had, but he did have it, and even in a situation where one side's huge negatives are very important the other side has to be able to draw people in or at least not put them off, as there are other places the votes could go, including nowhere at all, in order to take advantage of the other side's negatives. After all, the Tories had plenty of negatives too, including Boris himself for many, but Corbyn's own not only exceeded that, but he could not take advantage of the Tory and Boris negatives and nor did anyone else outside Scotland.
Labour have written to Ofcom asking for an urgent review into RT's licence to broadcast inthe UK
You could not have conceived that 6 months ago
Not sure why tbh. It is blatant propaganda but the idea that it genuinely influences people is a bit of a stretch. Maybe the odd Salmonista but no one even vaguely sensible.
I'd be inclined to agree in general, but then most attempts to influence people taken individually are not likely hugely effective. A lot of people, a lot, thought or think the Brexir vote did not count if the Russians put out some Facebook ads and twitter bots.
The trouble is that all votes do count, whether influenced by a candidate's smile or Russian trolls. Or increasingly by mainstream political parties using the same techniques as the Russians, which is why they will not be banned.
Trump is meant be throwing the first pitch soon. It will be fun if they kneel
Apart from the language on that Tweet ... Kaepernick chose kneeling as a symbol of RESPECT and look at the amount of respect shown by those players. Very touching! Well done them, just like our footballers.
When is Trump throwing a first pitch? I think you're confused, Fauci is going to soon.
it seems we’re willing to walk out and negotiate again with no-deal as the status quo next year - which would put much more pressure on all sides to compromise.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.
Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.
The SNP must be praying any purge doesn’t encompass Richard Leonard.
Edit - mind you, they were worried that Wendy Alexander being forced out would be bad news. Didn’t turn out that way...
Kind of right. I admit that a lot of my colleagues value Leonard because he is so utterly useless (heck, witness my own gif), but personally I would prefer to see a brighter, more competent and pro-Scottish SLab leader. My logic being that independence is going to be very demanding not just on the winning Yes team, but equally so on the losing Opposition. It is in all our interests that *all* parties are lead by intelligent, pleasant, constructive, well-meaning people. Labour and the Lib Dems are getting there. Tories are miles off.
I’m a big Wendy fan, and always have been. She was the last good SLab leader. It was Gordon Brown who bullied her out, one of his biggest mistakes. Wendy was a truly strategic Unionist thinker. Gey few of those about.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
I don't think that's entirely fair Max. We aren't asking for no LPF.
The UK position on LPF is that we agree there should be an LPF but it should be a standard LPF provision. In particular we are advocating the LPF found in the CETA agreement.
I see no reason if we want an LPF found in other agreements that we can't make other agreements. That's the point.
The EU are rejecting the LPF in past agreements and are claiming that all past agreements ratified are not a precedent to go on and the only precedence that applies is their interpretation of the Political Declaration and what they take that to mean.
No, our current position is to make no commitment to a LPF as per government policy. It's a logical 0/10 position to take when the opposing side are at the 10/10 position.
It must have changed then as we were suggesting Canada's precedence.
But yes if we have dug in at the other extreme due to their intransigence then it is presumably to be able to meet in the middle (about where we started) and not an intention to die in the ditch for nothing.
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
Frost seems to be doing a very good job, in stark contrast to his predecessor. If we get a deal, it won’t be almost entirely on the EU’s terms as the last one was, and it seems we’re willing to walk out and negotiate again with no-deal as the status quo next year - which would put much more pressure on all sides to compromise.
When we're going through the cratering of the economy in real time with fiscal support of around 6% of GDP, the idea of a car crash falling off a cliff Brexit outcome looks like a pin prick in comparison.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
In The Old Days (TM - geddit?) politicians were like robots - you could predict precisely what they would say and do in any given situation like clockwork, because they all read from the same script of The Things You Must Say And Do When X Happens.
I imagine this engendered the same unbearable tedium in others as it did in me. Not to mention anger, because quite often a different approach would have been more intelligent or just or appropriate but the old politicians simply wouldn't do it because it was Not In The Script.
It's very hard to feel an emotional connection to a machine, and whatever else Boris may be, he is very much a human...
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
You do not know what "him [sic] and Frost have achieved".
Trump is meant be throwing the first pitch soon. It will be fun if they kneel
Apart from the language on that Tweet ... Kaepernick chose kneeling as a symbol of RESPECT and look at the amount of respect shown by those players. Very touching! Well done them, just like our footballers.
When is Trump throwing a first pitch? I think you're confused, Fauci is going to soon.
Composite PMI of 57.1 in June. That's surprisingly good, I has it pencilled in at 54 with lower expectations in services for sure.
Obviously this is growing from a low base, however, there is now mounting evidence that there is a V shaped recovery underway, a second lockdown will severely set us back. The US is proof of this.
Absolutely agreed. We need to at all costs avoid a second lockdown. That means being smart, wear a mask etc.
We need to keep our liberties. If that means wearing a cloth mask then do it ... It's nothing compared to a second lockdown.
Mr. Carnyx, I must've missed the meeting where it was decided Scotland's a cohesive unit, Wales is a cohesive unit, and England has to be sliced into pieces.
Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?
If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.
England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.
Yet on actual polling all the indyref2 polls this year including Don't Knows have had Yes in a range of 43% to 50%, not vastly different from the 45% Yes got in 2014, not one single poll this year has had Yes over 50% once don't knows are included
That is not the same point though. 59% of all Brits and 74% of Scots feel the United Kingdom is weaker over 5 years. It is hard to see that reversed by BoZos Clown car crash Brexit.
Scottish Independence now looks inevitable, the only questions are timing and how acrimonious.
Timing: under the next Labour Prime Minister, whenever that is
Nastiness: extreme - expect many years of vicious eye-gouging over a whole range of inflammatory problems including (in no particular order) Trident, the national debt, the currency, the reserves of the Bank of England, the contents of the British Museum, citizenship, pensions and tariff barriers. Relations will be absolutely dreadful for at least as long as it takes for everybody who was involved in the separation process on both sides to die of old age
It will be brutal, no question. We know that splits on such major topics will cause hateful reactions in whichever side loses.
However, nothing is inevitable, even if the prospects look very grim, and we shouldn't pretend it is inevitable as that's just an excuse to convince people to give in.
Technically you're correct, but in practice there's no likely end point to this process other than separation. Whoever said that Scottish devolution was a motorway to independence with no exits has been proven triumphantly right.
Coming to terms with the end of the Union, if you're not in favour of it, is rather like coming to terms with the inevitability of your own eventual death. You don't have to like it, but it's a good idea for the sake of one's own sanity to learn to accept it.
As I said, and well exampled there, an excuse to get people to give in. I have certainly accepted the prospect and indeed likelihood of it, and it makes me sad, but claiming anything like that is inevitable is nothing but arrogance designed to suggest those who resist are in some way deluded, rather than simply in disagreement. It casts resistors in the role of the irrational not just opponents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If you really care about something then, depending upon the circumstances, it may be entirely laudable to fight for it even absent any realistic prospect of success.
No that is defeatist and when Yes is not over 50% in any poll including don't knows absurdly so
There's a world of difference between defeatism and realism. The First Minister is going to win a thumping majority in the Scottish Parliament next year, after which resistance to the second referendum - even if Johnson feels he can brazen it out under such circumstances - will only last for as long as the Conservative Government does. After that, you're facing a vote which has been delayed for years courtesy of obstruction by English Tory MPs, with an electorate in which many elderly Unionists have passed away and been replaced by pro-independence youth. It's over.
Boris will likely delay it as long as he is PM, if he loses the next election that means Starmer becomes PM, the whole UK rejoins the single market or close to it and Holyrood gets devomax and the demand for independence recedes even if he grants indyref2.
If however Boris does allow indyref2 after WTO terms Brexit then that means border controls and customs checks at Berwick and tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa and likely a Tory win again in 2024 on a surge of English nationalism, with Westminster free of SNP MPs the Tories have a majority of well over 100
Interesting change in tone and content from ultra HYUFD. Note the lack of threats of armed force, direct rule and partition. Instead he writes “likely” delay in first paragraph, and then his second paragraph is a completely new line: effectively acknowledging what many PBers have been pointing out: Cummings and his organ-grinder monkey are considering going full-on English Nationalist, abandoning all pretence of being the “And Unionist Party”.
GE24 would be a lot easier for the Tories if the Commons was 59 MPs lighter.
(Incidentally, Starmer/Labour hasn’t said anything about devomax for years, and there would be huge resistance from SLab.)
Boris ruled out indyref2 again yesterday, I was just talking about the very slim chance he granted it.
Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK
Yawn. You do realise that Labour have been banging on about federalism for decades now, don’t you? You being an expert on Scottish politics and all. Nothing ever comes of it and nothing ever will. Eg. it was always one of Gordon Brown’s rabbits to be dangled out the hat. Remember him?
Incidentally, devomax and federalism are not the same thing. (Devomax tends to mean different things according to who is using the term.)
Small incidentally - Trade Union Certification Officer does not seem to think that they have jurisdiction over McCluskey using Unite funds to pay legal fees in current defamation cases.
It is all apparently in the Trade Union Labour Relations Act 1992.
I can verify on my account as a historical Lib Dem voter and someone who voted remain that i voted Tory in 2019 GE out of a) fear of Corbyn b)dismay at the way that Lib Dem leadership appeared not to care about cheating 17 million people out of a Brexit (however stupid) winning Referendum vote.
So would you feel so inclined with Starmer as the leader? You are the voter we want to win
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.
Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
Strategically for Starmer it would be better just to carry on and let Corbyn self-destruct as he discredits himself further. In doing so he'll splinter the far left further. On Tuesday it was noticeable how some of Corbyn's former allies were distancing themselves from his defiance - for example John Lansman and James Mills, his former adviser. The next step in the saga is to watch from the sidelines as Corbyn is sued by John Ware and to await the EHRC report. No need for Starmer to overreach himself by setting up Corbyn as a martyr at this point. Better to wait and take stock later.
I agree 100% with this article: "Keir Starmer doesn’t need to lift a finger as Corbyn’s Left discredits itself"
BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.
Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.
The SNP must be praying any purge doesn’t encompass Richard Leonard.
Edit - mind you, they were worried that Wendy Alexander being forced out would be bad news. Didn’t turn out that way...
Kind of right. I admit that a lot of my colleagues value Leonard because he is so utterly useless (heck, witness my own gif), but personally I would prefer to see a brighter, more competent and pro-Scottish SLab leader. My logic being that independence is going to be very demanding not just on the winning Yes team, but equally so on the losing Opposition. It is in all our interests that *all* parties are lead by intelligent, pleasant, constructive, well-meaning people. Labour and the Lib Dems are getting there. Tories are miles off.
I’m a big Wendy fan, and always have been. She was the last good SLab leader. It was Gordon Brown who bullied her out, one of his biggest mistakes. Wendy was a truly strategic Unionist thinker. Gey few of those about.
Your surely right about independence being "very demanding". The costs of a break-up will be huge and there will be zero acceptance on the part of RUK taxpayers to pay for any of it. After all, they won't have voted for it. It will be a bloody divorce with a very asymmetric cost being borne north of the border. The parallel negotiations to re-enter the EU will be fun too - wonder what price the Spanish Govt will insist on, given their pre-occupation with Catalonia?
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
You do not know what "him [sic] and Frost have achieved".
Last year already they achieved a deal we were told was impossible.
Last year already they achieved ensuring NI remained sovereign with Stormont controlling their future despite being told it was impossible.
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
Not just the Tory party, the rest of the country as well. Robbins' deal was an absolute turd and those FT reports and reports from Bruno Waterfield were always extremely on point and quite depressing at the time. The Frost approach is the correct one.
Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.
Mr. Carnyx, I must've missed the meeting where it was decided Scotland's a cohesive unit, Wales is a cohesive unit, and England has to be sliced into pieces.
Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?
If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.
England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.
I agree. I see no merit in splitting up England, other than into units of local government. I’m actually a bit of a convert to simply reverting to the old shires and be done with it: an awful lot of people are still fiercely proud of their old counties, despite being abolished (by the Tories!?!) way back in the 1970s.
England is one nation. Scots, and others, should respect that.
Betfair has added Nadja West to the market. There is no obvious reason for her inclusion other than some cynical layer asked Betfair to add her name but what do I know? Perhaps she is BFF with Joe.
She does have a compelling biography but no obvious link to politics that I can see from her Wikipedia page. Female, Black, orphan who rose to become Surgeon General of the US Army, from which position she has just retired.
In case anyone thinks role models do not matter, or that Wikipedia is not written and edited by nerds: She has claimed an early, positive influence was seeing a black, female character (Uhura) on the bridge of Star Trek's USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadja_West
What did I say the other day, about the dangers of betting on a contest where the winner is one man’s pick from 330m eligible candidates?
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
Not just the Tory party, the rest of the country as well. Robbins' deal was an absolute turd and those FT reports and reports from Bruno Waterfield were always extremely on point and quite depressing at the time. The Frost approach is the correct one.
Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.
Frost capitulated and got the same deal May originally negotiated - but sure
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
That's nearly 40 people per team!
I can only imagine it's the full squad (including reserves etc) not the full team. Or are there really that many per team?
It will include coaches and several pitchers (known as “the bull pen”) but I would be surprised if they used more than about 20-25 people in any one game, including those coaches. I would expect the rest are resting players/squad. A baseball team would normally play over 100 games between April and September, so they need to be able to rotate players.
Mr. Carnyx, I must've missed the meeting where it was decided Scotland's a cohesive unit, Wales is a cohesive unit, and England has to be sliced into pieces.
Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?
If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.
England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.
I agree. I see no merit in splitting up England, other than into units of local government. I’m actually a bit of a convert to simply reverting to the old shires and be done with it: an awful lot of people are still fiercely proud of their old counties, despite being abolished (by the Tories!?!) way back in the 1970s.
England is one nation. Scots, and others, should respect that.
I entirely agree. Breaking it up is a necessary precondition of true federalism of the UK, which is therefore impossible - the point I was making.
Mr. Dickson, it surprises me more people don't see it that way.
I can get why left wing English politicians dislike the idea of an English Parliament (they fear they'll struggle to win the same way they foolishly thought they'd own Celtic fiefdoms forever), but this desire to cut England into bits does not sit well.
It may also make Starmer's job more difficult in England, though I don't think his fiefdom folly has yet been fleshed out.
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
Not just the Tory party, the rest of the country as well. Robbins' deal was an absolute turd and those FT reports and reports from Bruno Waterfield were always extremely on point and quite depressing at the time. The Frost approach is the correct one.
Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.
Frost capitulated and got the same deal May originally negotiated - but sure
Mr. Carnyx, I must've missed the meeting where it was decided Scotland's a cohesive unit, Wales is a cohesive unit, and England has to be sliced into pieces.
Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?
If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.
England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.
Exactly, which is the point I was making about federalism beig nonsense.
Starmer is playing a blinder on Corbyn. Just let Corbyn continue to distance himself from the leadership and Starmer can just sit still and do very little.
That doesn't mean Starmer is going to become a centrist, I firmly believe he will pitch a 2017-lite manifesto. The Corbynite left needs to understand that there are lots of lefties that aren't Corbynites and their policies aren't exclusive to them.
Starmer is just a better leftie, pretty hard to objectively disagree.
Betfair has added Nadja West to the market. There is no obvious reason for her inclusion other than some cynical layer asked Betfair to add her name but what do I know? Perhaps she is BFF with Joe.
She does have a compelling biography but no obvious link to politics that I can see from her Wikipedia page. Female, Black, orphan who rose to become Surgeon General of the US Army, from which position she has just retired.
In case anyone thinks role models do not matter, or that Wikipedia is not written and edited by nerds: She has claimed an early, positive influence was seeing a black, female character (Uhura) on the bridge of Star Trek's USS Enterprise (NCC-1701). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadja_West
What did I say the other day, about the dangers of betting on a contest where the winner is one man’s pick from 330m eligible candidates?
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
I think it's something that the negotiation team learned when Robbins and May were in charge. We'd stake out a fair position at 4-7/10 depending on the issue, the EU starts everything at 10/10 and refuses to to budge until the very last minute at which point them shifting to 9/10 is seen as a big win by the negotiators so they bring it back as such but really all that's happened is the EU have got their 9/10 alignment which is what they were going for.
Whatever anyone thinks about Frost, you never get the reports that the EU team are running rings around him like we saw when Robbins was in charge with weekly reports in the FT that the EU had secured yet more movement in the UK position in return for nothing concessions they covered in glitter.
I'm not sure it makes much sense to pre-judge negotiations based on press reports.
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
Not just the Tory party, the rest of the country as well. Robbins' deal was an absolute turd and those FT reports and reports from Bruno Waterfield were always extremely on point and quite depressing at the time. The Frost approach is the correct one.
Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.
Frost capitulated and got the same deal May originally negotiated - but sure
Err. There is no deal at present
No deal for this stage. There was a deal at the last stage, hence those of us, like me, who had said there would not be one looked foolish.
Mr. Carnyx, I must've missed the meeting where it was decided Scotland's a cohesive unit, Wales is a cohesive unit, and England has to be sliced into pieces.
Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?
If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.
England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.
I agree. I see no merit in splitting up England, other than into units of local government. I’m actually a bit of a convert to simply reverting to the old shires and be done with it: an awful lot of people are still fiercely proud of their old counties, despite being abolished (by the Tories!?!) way back in the 1970s.
England is one nation. Scots, and others, should respect that.
I entirely agree. Breaking it up is a necessary precondition of true federalism of the UK, which is therefore impossible - the point I was making.
I must admit that I hadn’t pressed the Previous quotes button I was just agreeing with Mr Dancer.
Labour tried its Northeast Assembly bullshit, but that's been it on the political front.
I was wryly amused at the metropolitan idiocy of the BBC's Mark Easton a few years ago. He travelled to Cornwall to do a segment on devolution. He talked about a Cornish or SW body (Cornwall plus Devon) and a wider one with Somerset and Dorset. Magically managed not to ever mention the concept of an English Parliament.
BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.
Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.
The SNP must be praying any purge doesn’t encompass Richard Leonard.
Edit - mind you, they were worried that Wendy Alexander being forced out would be bad news. Didn’t turn out that way...
Kind of right. I admit that a lot of my colleagues value Leonard because he is so utterly useless (heck, witness my own gif), but personally I would prefer to see a brighter, more competent and pro-Scottish SLab leader. My logic being that independence is going to be very demanding not just on the winning Yes team, but equally so on the losing Opposition. It is in all our interests that *all* parties are lead by intelligent, pleasant, constructive, well-meaning people. Labour and the Lib Dems are getting there. Tories are miles off.
I’m a big Wendy fan, and always have been. She was the last good SLab leader. It was Gordon Brown who bullied her out, one of his biggest mistakes. Wendy was a truly strategic Unionist thinker. Gey few of those about.
I too was very surprised when ydoethur claimed that the SNP saw the Wendy Alexander departure as a threat - my imporession was quite the reverse.
Labour tried its Northeast Assembly bullshit, but that's been it on the political front.
I was wryly amused at the metropolitan idiocy of the BBC's Mark Easton a few years ago. He travelled to Cornwall to do a segment on devolution. He talked about a Cornish or SW body (Cornwall plus Devon) and a wider one with Somerset and Dorset. Magically managed not to ever mention the concept of an English Parliament.
True. But are the Tories going to offer it? Mr HYUFD seems to be getting a different line from CCHQ which makes me wonder ...
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
There might be a psychological issue - Westminster having been de facto the Englsh pmt (and certainly in origin). Might be a tricky sell.But I can't judge that myself.
Labour tried its Northeast Assembly bullshit, but that's been it on the political front.
I was wryly amused at the metropolitan idiocy of the BBC's Mark Easton a few years ago. He travelled to Cornwall to do a segment on devolution. He talked about a Cornish or SW body (Cornwall plus Devon) and a wider one with Somerset and Dorset. Magically managed not to ever mention the concept of an English Parliament.
True. But are the Tories going to offer it? Mr HYUFD seems to be getting a different line from CCHQ which makes me wonder ...
HYUFD is an eccentric extremist who will stick unbendingly to his own line until there is a new line he takes. Then he never took the original one. We were always at war with Eastasia.
BJO posted a belated comment two threads ago saying that sources in Islington CLP have been told Corbyn is to lose the whip.
Leaving aside the fact he is now doubling down on his mindless racism, surely he deserves expulsion for the blatant defiance of Starmer, which effectively includes calling the new Labour leader a liar?
Kicking Corbyn out the party would be a master stroke. Would send a crystal clear message to the electorate. Next target Tony Blair.
The SNP must be praying any purge doesn’t encompass Richard Leonard.
Edit - mind you, they were worried that Wendy Alexander being forced out would be bad news. Didn’t turn out that way...
Kind of right. I admit that a lot of my colleagues value Leonard because he is so utterly useless (heck, witness my own gif), but personally I would prefer to see a brighter, more competent and pro-Scottish SLab leader. My logic being that independence is going to be very demanding not just on the winning Yes team, but equally so on the losing Opposition. It is in all our interests that *all* parties are lead by intelligent, pleasant, constructive, well-meaning people. Labour and the Lib Dems are getting there. Tories are miles off.
I’m a big Wendy fan, and always have been. She was the last good SLab leader. It was Gordon Brown who bullied her out, one of his biggest mistakes. Wendy was a truly strategic Unionist thinker. Gey few of those about.
Your surely right about independence being "very demanding". The costs of a break-up will be huge and there will be zero acceptance on the part of RUK taxpayers to pay for any of it. After all, they won't have voted for it. It will be a bloody divorce with a very asymmetric cost being borne north of the border. The parallel negotiations to re-enter the EU will be fun too - wonder what price the Spanish Govt will insist on, given their pre-occupation with Catalonia?
Labour tried its Northeast Assembly bullshit, but that's been it on the political front.
I was wryly amused at the metropolitan idiocy of the BBC's Mark Easton a few years ago. He travelled to Cornwall to do a segment on devolution. He talked about a Cornish or SW body (Cornwall plus Devon) and a wider one with Somerset and Dorset. Magically managed not to ever mention the concept of an English Parliament.
True. But are the Tories going to offer it? Mr HYUFD seems to be getting a different line from CCHQ which makes me wonder ...
I can't see any deal where Cornwall is put in with anyone else working. Even people whose roots don't go deep into Cornish soil seem to regard the place as 'different'. And as for those whose roots do........
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
There's an element of thinking that goes "he's a dodgy bastard, but he's OUR dodgy bastard".
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
You do not know what "him [sic] and Frost have achieved".
Last year already they achieved a deal we were told was impossible.
Last year already they achieved ensuring NI remained sovereign with Stormont controlling their future despite being told it was impossible.
Boris has achieved doing something he said no prime minister would ever do and lied when he said there would be no checks between NI and Great Britain.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
No, you really don't.
Scotland would still say these various English entities were united in a single purpose - doing down Scotland. You would be no further forward.
Let's have a UK-wide referendum on whether constituent countries can vote to cede. But even if that referendum passed, the Scots would doubtless still not do so.
"It's a trick! Don't do as the English want you to do...."
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
Close England to immigration and bring in Open Door for everywhere else. Build the new Hong Kong in Northern Ireland. Once the population of England is less than the rest put together, *then* you can do a federal UK.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Mr. Carnyx, breaking England into acceptable chunks?
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
Dosn't work. The whole idea for a workable federation is to have federal units say about 3-7m population in size. S, W and NI don't need to be broken up - it's England that does.
No it doesn't need to. Just have an English Parliament that has the same powers.as the Scottish one and the problem is solved. The English NHS can be controlled by English politicians. What harm is there in that?
Because the English wont' do it.
Won't do what? Have their own Parliament?
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
But it then creates a bigger issue as the defacto leader of the English Parliament may as well be PM as the PM's job would be so diminished.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
Not nessecarily, it depends on how decisions are made in a Federal system. For example with a US style Senate, we could have equal numbers of Senators for each of the four nations. Another option would be to require a supermajority so that no item could pass without 3 of four assemblies voting it through.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Maybe it's because I'm a Frankfurter? Our do you think they want to revive the primacy of Antwerp?
Are there really that many people on a baseball team?!
That's both teams
I know, but even just on one side it looked like a long line.
Squad size is 25. Pitchers don't pitch every day. There are usually 5 starters who rotate every 4 to 5 days. But they very rarely complete a full 9 innings. So there is a bullpen of relievers who come on as and when needed. 8 position players plus subs for injuries etc. So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Baseball is a great game to watch. The best of American Stadium sports, and so much better than cricket.
I think baseball is best watched with a kind expert to explain what is happening. It is very intricate in strategy and tactics and not obvious to the uninitiated. Basketball is a great sport to watch in person. Courtside you are remarkably close to the action and can easily appreciate the skill and speed without any great need to understand the finer points. Ditto ice hockey. Both are much better in person than on TV.
Specifically on the LPF, if our position holds for all trade negotiations then the UK will be a nation with no trade deals. That's why I'm sure it is posturing and brinkmanship so when we do agree to set a minimum standard as part of the treaty with the EU it feels like a big win for the EU. Trade deals, big ones like this especially, always include legally enforceable minimum standards on state aid and tender processes not being used as a tool of state subsidy.
If our position on no LPF commitment holds then it will be a no deal, the EU will, rightly IMO, refuse to deal with the UK. The issue is that they want a 10/10 LPF commitment and we're asking for 0/10. My guess is that we'll end up somewhere between 4-7/10 and both sides will call it a win.
The State aid is the tricky bit, especially in a time of Covid. The EU themselves seem to have (rightly) ripped up the rule book in this time of crisis and we need to be able to do the same. Standards, whether electrical safety or financial regulation is much less of an issue.
The EU has standards when it comes to financial regulation?
Well, they mainly use ours tbh. An EU financial regulatory system without substantial input from London is quite hard to imagine. One of my favourite bits was when the previous governor resorted to a picture book to show EU countries what they still needed to do if they were to have access to London's services after Brexit.
Many in the EU feel that London should no longer be Europe’s main financial centre post-Brexit. Expect moves to try and make this happen. I don’t know how easy it will be. But Britain should not be complacent.
Quite right too if they want to marginalize London it’s up to them.
Comments
Starmer is moving towards a Federal UK
Bereft of intellectual weight, with nothing much in his head and painfully conscious of the deficiency, BoZo's options were to lean heavily on unctuous self-righteousness or, when that failed, to lash out. Unable to provide good reasons, or any reasons, for his decisions, he simply acted with erratic impunity and got instantly testy if anyone questioned his authority.
It is truly remarkable, considering we are told Corbyn is such a nice and humble man (he does seem like hed be a nice person to talk to) just how viscerally so many MPs disliked him or distrusted his leadership after knowing him for so long.
Betfair has added Nadja West to the market. There is no obvious reason for her inclusion other than some cynical layer asked Betfair to add her name but what do I know? Perhaps she is BFF with Joe.
She does have a compelling biography but no obvious link to politics that I can see from her Wikipedia page. Female, Black, orphan who rose to become Surgeon General of the US Army, from which position she has just retired.
In case anyone thinks role models do not matter, or that Wikipedia is not written and edited by nerds:
She has claimed an early, positive influence was seeing a black, female character (Uhura) on the bridge of Star Trek's USS Enterprise (NCC-1701).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadja_West
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/coronavirus-latest-british-scientists-vaccine-trials-tyler-cowen-561462
Very hard to see Starmer winning a majority of English MPs given the Tories have a majority of 154 in England, possible to see him becoming UK PM though still given the Tories have a UK majority of 80 and if he does he will have to govern therefore for the whole UK whatever England alone thinks
ETA #ClassicDom.
Obviously this is growing from a low base, however, there is now mounting evidence that there is a V shaped recovery underway, a second lockdown will severely set us back. The US is proof of this.
Trump is meant be throwing the first pitch soon. It will be fun if they kneel
The BBC election. Brexit. "Boris". Corbyn.
And still imo people underestimating the middle B. Yes, Brexit was the core issue. Yes, Corbyn cost Labour support. But Boris Johnson was electoral gold to a certain constituency, white working class men, many of whom were Red Wall voters. This turned the win - which was inevitable - into the landslide.
Wed afternoon, I was enjoying a quiet pint in a pub beer garden when a cohort of Pimlico Plumbers turned up. 5 of them, took the next table, quite noisy, so I wasn't eavesdropping, I had no choice in the matter.
Anyway, point of story, there was much "Boris" talk with these guys. And I'm sorry to report it was all positive. They still love him. They know he's dodgy but they love him. In fact they love him BECAUSE he's dodgy.
What can you do?
(The first time I heard the wortd since Greek lessons at school was when a Northumberland friend was complaining about the attitude of central government to the locals in his area.)
We need to keep our liberties. If that means wearing a cloth mask then do it ... It's nothing compared to a second lockdown.
Boris fights for Britain. He's what we need. Him and Frost have achieved more in a year with Europe than Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron or May ever did. Not since the iron lady's handbag have we had someone unremittingly willing to stand up for Britain.
I suspect the former DPP will get the technicalities right, so that any Corbynite suing the party merely bankrupts themselves.
Sure. Right after Scotland has different Parliaments for the Islands, Highlands, and Lowlands.
When is Trump throwing a first pitch? I think you're confused, Fauci is going to soon.
I can only imagine it's the full squad (including reserves etc) not the full team. Or are there really that many per team?
https://californiaglobe.com/congress/source-coelho-pushing-biden-to-pick-bass/
Not massively well sourced but FWIW they're claiming it comes down to
𝄢 vs 🦆
What we know is that TMay negotiated a deal with the EU her own party couldn't accept (in sufficient numbers). Boris negotiated one that they could.
The last I heard was that Campbell had lost round three out of three (end of May), and probably only had one more higher court remaining.
I’m a big Wendy fan, and always have been. She was the last good SLab leader. It was Gordon Brown who bullied her out, one of his biggest mistakes. Wendy was a truly strategic Unionist thinker. Gey few of those about.
Being against brexit and being planning NIMBYs will only get you so far, as demonstrated in recent elections.
I imagine this engendered the same unbearable tedium in others as it did in me. Not to mention anger, because quite often a different approach would have been more intelligent or just or appropriate but the old politicians simply wouldn't do it because it was Not In The Script.
It's very hard to feel an emotional connection to a machine, and whatever else Boris may be, he is very much a human...
Fauci already did his
Trump is due soon
There is a first pitch at more than one game...
Something I agree with
Do you want these petty fiefdoms to have power equal to Holyrood?
If you do, then you're advocating different rates of income tax and educational policies within different parts of England. If you do not, then you're arguing the English deserve an inferior level of devolution.
England is one land. It isn't yours or some here today, gone tomorrow politician's to carve up into administratively convenient pieces.
Incidentally, devomax and federalism are not the same thing. (Devomax tends to mean different things according to who is using the term.)
It is all apparently in the Trade Union Labour Relations Act 1992.
Last year already they achieved ensuring NI remained sovereign with Stormont controlling their future despite being told it was impossible.
Negotiations are always adversarial, Robbins not treating it as such is why his deal was so crap. The correct attitude is that the EU is our informal enemy until we have a treaty saying otherwise at which point they become a formal ally.
England is one nation. Scots, and others, should respect that.
A baseball team would normally play over 100 games between April and September, so they need to be able to rotate players.
I can get why left wing English politicians dislike the idea of an English Parliament (they fear they'll struggle to win the same way they foolishly thought they'd own Celtic fiefdoms forever), but this desire to cut England into bits does not sit well.
It may also make Starmer's job more difficult in England, though I don't think his fiefdom folly has yet been fleshed out.
That doesn't mean Starmer is going to become a centrist, I firmly believe he will pitch a 2017-lite manifesto. The Corbynite left needs to understand that there are lots of lefties that aren't Corbynites and their policies aren't exclusive to them.
Starmer is just a better leftie, pretty hard to objectively disagree.
Your logic is, as always, impeccable.
Labour tried its Northeast Assembly bullshit, but that's been it on the political front.
I was wryly amused at the metropolitan idiocy of the BBC's Mark Easton a few years ago. He travelled to Cornwall to do a segment on devolution. He talked about a Cornish or SW body (Cornwall plus Devon) and a wider one with Somerset and Dorset. Magically managed not to ever mention the concept of an English Parliament.
I think an equitable referendum to have an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament would pass and then we would eliminate the problems of asymmetrical devolution.
Yes I suppose quite an achievement.
8 position players plus subs for injuries etc.
So 9 on the field. Remember they play 162 3 hour plus games a season normally.
Which is why it a Federal UK doesn't work, any devolution results in one bit being 10 times the size of the other bits able to swamp all decisions.
So you then end up looking at splitting England into suitable bits and good luck with that as how do you spilt the 15 or so million in London and the Home Counties.
Shame. I was looking forward to some world class moral hypocrisy.
Scotland would still say these various English entities were united in a single purpose - doing down Scotland. You would be no further forward.
Let's have a UK-wide referendum on whether constituent countries can vote to cede. But even if that referendum passed, the Scots would doubtless still not do so.
"It's a trick! Don't do as the English want you to do...."
Basketball is a great sport to watch in person. Courtside you are remarkably close to the action and can easily appreciate the skill and speed without any great need to understand the finer points. Ditto ice hockey.
Both are much better in person than on TV.