If Labour goes ahead in the polls, how long before Johnson gets the boot?
When David Cameron was Prime Minister Labour first went ahead 27/09/2010 - he announced his resignation 24/06/16 so five years, nine months later and rather because of the results from the vote the night before not because of polls.
When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister Labour first went ahead 18/06/79 - she announced her resignation November 1990.
When John Major was Prime Minister Labour first went ahead ahead 28/12/90 - he announced his resignation on 22/06/95 but was re-elected leader. He resigned again on 02/05/1997
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
It’s not evidence. The contract is and when and if it comes out it can be reviewed.
It is not however obvious tosh.
I do think it plausible that a government (especially one where Cummings - whose views on the use of data are well known - has such influence) might well allow private firms it wants to partner with, as stated by Hancock in the last couple of days, to access and use data collected in the course of those projects. Such data is immensely valuable and private firms are perfectly well aware of this. You are, with all due respect, Richard, being naive in thinking otherwise.
So it's OK to accuse someone of having done something because it is plausible to say that they might well have done it?
Golly. Are those the rules of evidence you applied to all those poor bankers?
No. I have said that it is plausible that the government might well do this and I have given the reasons why it might be plausible.
Having now reviewed the contract briefly, there is no provision at present for any personal data to be handed over but there is (a) provision for there to be further agreement on the sharing of personal data; (b) further agreement on how such data is to be treated; (c) the definition of personal data is very wide; and (d) the time during which it can be processed is the duration of this particular contract + 7 years.
As for the “poor bankers”, very very few of them ever challenged my team’s findings and those that did lost their case in court.
Night all.
You are completely misreading it, for reasons already explained by others. The "wide definition of personal data" for instance is about the supplier's staff, not about the data being processed under the contract at all. All this is just a repetition of the mistakes in the article which you uncritically adopted in the first place.
will have to take their dogs for walks twice a day for a minimum of one hour in total will not be allowed to keep their dogs chained for long periods of time will not be allowed to leave dogs alone the whole day Breeders will be restricted to looking after a maximum of three litters and puppies will have to spend a minimum of four hours a day in human company to ensure they get socialised."
I think some of the Swiss Cantons already have rules on dog walking (as well as, believe it or not, how often you need to mow your lawn).
Ever since the days of old Men would search for wealth untold They'd dig for silver and for gold And leave the empty holes And way down south in the Everglades Where the black water rolls and the saw grass waves The eagles fly and the otters play In the land of the Seminole
So blow, blow Seminole wind Blow like you're never gonna blow again I'm callin' to you like a long-lost friend But I know who you are And blow, blow from the Okeechobee All the way up to Micanopy Blow across the home of the Seminole The alligator and the gar
Progress came and took its toll And in the name of flood control They made their plans and they drained the land Now the Glades are goin' dry And the last time I walked in the swamp I stood up on a cyprus stump I listened close and I heard the ghost Of Oseola cry
So blow, blow Seminole wind Blow like you're never gonna blow again I'm callin' to you like a long-lost friend But I know who you are And blow, blow from the Okeechobee All the way up to Micanopy Blow across the home of the Seminole The alligator and the gar
What Starmer seems to have done is basically harmonised the anti-Tory vote quite effectively. There's still a few votes in it.
The problem is, that I am not sure having a higher percentage but it being anti-Tory is enough alone, we need to start converting Tories
You can't convert Tories till they lose faith in the Tories. It is a 2 stage process.
You can't convert Tories until they have some belief that Labour has become that which it is still a very long way from becoming - a party worthy of power.
What Starmer seems to have done is basically harmonised the anti-Tory vote quite effectively. There's still a few votes in it.
The problem is, that I am not sure having a higher percentage but it being anti-Tory is enough alone, we need to start converting Tories
You can't convert Tories till they lose faith in the Tories. It is a 2 stage process.
You can't convert Tories until they have some belief that Labour has become that which it is still a very long way from becoming - a party worthy of power.
Indeed. The Tories are currently testing to destruction the idea that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them.
Clearly it's always going to be a bit of both, but I think it's a mistake for Starmer and Labour to assume that they only have to look unthreatening and wait for the public to get fed up with the Tories.
I see @Casino_Royale continues to talk rubbish about something they know nothing about.
They sound like Putin supporters when talking about homosexuals.
Complete lack of self awareness and rationality. Embarrassing.
Since you haven't addressed a single one of my points and arguments and have just responded with a broadside personal attack, and smear, I'll conclude that you have no response to what I've said. And you're just frustrated by that.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Didn't happen in the Catalan dispute.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
Different situation, legally: very much so. Equal signatories to the 1707 union, remember.
I don't believe so. The issue is with the nature of the Treaty of 1707. The UK is not a supranational or intergovernmental institution like the EU; the Treaty of Union is not at all the same sort of arrangement as the Treaty of Rome, and the Scottish Parliament is most definitely not a revival of the pre-1707 body. England and Scotland have no sovereign personality. They both dissolved themselves.
The very first words written into the record of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 were that it was specifically a reconvention of that closed in 1707. That was not challenged at the time.
Welcome to this, the first meeting of the Scottish Parliament established under the Scotland Act 1998. We are gathered on this day and at this time and place, in accordance with The Scottish Parliament (First Ordinary General Election and First Meeting) Order 1999. As provided by the standing orders, my role is to preside over the proceedings to enable the oldest qualified member to take the oath or make a solemn affirmation.
Which accepts this was a new Parliament established under a new act.
I’m getting really quite worried that even sensible Nats are getting more and more divorced from reality, like Cummings or Farage Business for Scotland and the National are we all know fake news websites that can’t be trusted, but Carnyx is a sensible and intelligent poster.
Yet even he(?) has swallowed the lies of the Nats’ propagandists whole. No wonder support for independence is increasing if this horseshit is swallowed without question.
will have to take their dogs for walks twice a day for a minimum of one hour in total will not be allowed to keep their dogs chained for long periods of time will not be allowed to leave dogs alone the whole day Breeders will be restricted to looking after a maximum of three litters and puppies will have to spend a minimum of four hours a day in human company to ensure they get socialised."
It's clearly well-intentioned but a lot depends on the breed. Our border collie mix generally gets three walks and two hours a day and needs all of that. Some breed need very little indeed. The other instructions are fair enough although responsible owners probably adhere to them without pressure anyway.
Comments
When Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister Labour first went ahead 18/06/79 - she announced her resignation November 1990.
When John Major was Prime Minister Labour first went ahead ahead 28/12/90 - he announced his resignation on 22/06/95 but was re-elected leader. He resigned again on 02/05/1997
Watch this space.
SEMINOLE WIND
John David Anderson
Ever since the days of old
Men would search for wealth untold
They'd dig for silver and for gold
And leave the empty holes
And way down south in the Everglades
Where the black water rolls and the saw grass waves
The eagles fly and the otters play
In the land of the Seminole
So blow, blow Seminole wind
Blow like you're never gonna blow again
I'm callin' to you like a long-lost friend
But I know who you are
And blow, blow from the Okeechobee
All the way up to Micanopy
Blow across the home of the Seminole
The alligator and the gar
Progress came and took its toll
And in the name of flood control
They made their plans and they drained the land
Now the Glades are goin' dry
And the last time I walked in the swamp
I stood up on a cyprus stump
I listened close and I heard the ghost
Of Oseola cry
So blow, blow Seminole wind
Blow like you're never gonna blow again
I'm callin' to you like a long-lost friend
But I know who you are
And blow, blow from the Okeechobee
All the way up to Micanopy
Blow across the home of the Seminole
The alligator and the gar
Clearly it's always going to be a bit of both, but I think it's a mistake for Starmer and Labour to assume that they only have to look unthreatening and wait for the public to get fed up with the Tories.
So I'll take that as a victory. Thank you.
http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=4160
Welcome to this, the first meeting of the Scottish Parliament established under the Scotland Act 1998. We are gathered on this day and at this time and place, in accordance with The Scottish Parliament (First Ordinary General Election and First Meeting) Order 1999. As provided by the standing orders, my role is to preside over the proceedings to enable the oldest qualified member to take the oath or make a solemn affirmation.
Which accepts this was a new Parliament established under a new act.
I’m getting really quite worried that even sensible Nats are getting more and more divorced from reality, like Cummings or Farage Business for Scotland and the National are we all know fake news websites that can’t be trusted, but Carnyx is a sensible and intelligent poster.
Yet even he(?) has swallowed the lies of the Nats’ propagandists whole. No wonder support for independence is increasing if this horseshit is swallowed without question.