I agree, fishing is non negotiable, both as the Tories won so many fishing ports at GE19 and as they are targeting fishing port constituencies at Holyrood next year like Moray currently held by the SNP.
Compromise may be possible on the LPA and regulatory alignment though as that would still allow the UK to do a FTA that ends free movement and allows us to do our own trade deals
Should the priority be the country or the Conservative party?
Is there a difference?
The country overwhelmingly elected the Conservative Party. If the country wants a different parties principles then they can elect a different one at the next election.
The country didn’t overwhelmingly elect a conservative government, it got less than50% of the vote so is a minority administration. It was also elected to look after the interests of all its residents as far as is possible and has a responsibility to seek fairness. This government does not try to do anything but look after those who pay the piper (And I don’t mean the average tax payer) knowing it can get away with it And will continue to do so. So much for democracy.
47% in Britain voted either Conservative, Brexit Party or UKIP. Under most voting systems that would give a majority.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
I was working in Edinburgh at the time of the vote (by the way I didn't vote). The feeling I got (and this is purely anecdotal) amongst those who I believe were non-aligned but probably voted 'no', was not one of happiness or even relief. It was a sort of sharpness and almost guilt, like really they wished they'd had more bottle. It never felt like the end of the argument, because it was not people really feeling at home in the union.
That is a clear eyed and somewhat gloomy depiction of 2014 for someone who's invariably pro Union. Can I ask (without any intention to troll), can you see the current crop of Unionists managing to increase that sense of comfort within the Union? Sunak alone seems to have some meager positive currency, as it were, but Gove, BJ, Galloway(!) etc seem to inspire large dollops of amused contempt.
I gave it a like when it appeared. I'd be interested to know too.
On the Holyrood metric of 'let's have him/her as leader because there's no one else left', it looks like Gove will lead Bettertogether II by default. This below will be played on a loop, no doubt to cries of 'Gove's the man the Nats REALLY fear!'.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Remain lost, get over it.
That’s all Brexiteers have. We won. That’s it.
No articulation of any benefits of Brexit, no adaptation to the current circumstances. No attempt to win anyone over or find a positive case.
Just we won, we will do it, to hell with the consequences and damn the rest of you.
I see the r rate for Remainerdepression is back on the rise.
He has a point. What's it all for? Other than fish obviously.
Who are we going to sell the fish to? We are closing off our main market for goods.
we can always eat more of it ourselves.
It will vary our diet from eating grass.
Brits do not like fish all that much. It is why we sell our fish.
Now, if we could develop a wild McDonalds burger that could be harvested (ideally living in a clamshell style bap) then no doubt we would eat every single one...
Actually Brits love fish but they only like a resticted range. A bit of education would do wonders to widening what we like.
They tried that in the war. Brexiters ought to be forcefed on snoek and rock salmon for the rest of their lives.
Your country needs YOU... to eat bloater paste!
Well, herring can't be deep-fried so we have to find some other way of making it 'easy'.
(But it shallow-fries very well after being dipped in oatmeal - had it with new potatoes a few days ago.)
Sounds yum.
I forgot, it was filleted - much easier to cook evenly than a whole herring.
Does anyone know what the weather forecast is at the Ageas Bowl for the next few days?
Without wanting to jinx our batsmen I'm enjoying this innings and its only Day 2 so I'm hopeful they don't feel the pressure for an early declaration later today if they're still batting.
Does anyone know what the weather forecast is at the Ageas Bowl for the next few days?
Without wanting to jinx our batsmen I'm enjoying this innings and its only Day 2 so I'm hopeful they don't feel the pressure for an early declaration later today if they're still batting.
Ugh. How can anyone justify suporting this corpulent shitsack? Not letting this twat get down to Westminster and get his mug on the TV is the best argument yet I've seen for shutting the border.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
I would advocate Scottish Conservatives not standing in seats they did not already hold or where they were second to the SNP yes, if they were second but Labour or the LDs rather were first they would still stand but I don't think there are any such seats.
I am happy for Labour to be the Unionist Alliance challengers to the SNP across Glasgow and the Central Belt and most of Edinburgh bar central and West yes and would stand not a single Tory candidate in those constituency seats only on the list.
I would also support a Labour FM to keep out Sturgeon too yes.
Labour has won Edinburgh South through Tory support to keep out the SNP for instance
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Its not impossible. A Canadian style FTA that Barnier originally said was possible meets every single criteria. As Barnier said years ago. The criteria that exist make one type of trade agreement very possible.
Possible.
Depending on what is included, such as the LPF we agreed to in the WDA. That is what Barnier wants, us to stick to our word.
The same LPF conditions as Canada?
The LPF we agreed in the WDA PD.
Great. Just copy and paste the agreed WDA PD word-for-word into the new legal document and go with that. What's the issue?
Or did you forget the WDA PD was a political text and no legal LPF was agreed in the first place then? Which is the issue now.
The thing is we do not get to dictate the counter parties position.
It is why I expect no Trade Agreement, though there may be bare bones agreements on flights etc.
The other party can say what they want as can we - but objectively no LPF was legally agreed in the WDA PD last year and our ambition for a Canada style LPF is entirely in line with the text that was agreed last year.
You don't get to rewrite the WDA PD to claim it agreed things that were never agreed at all.
"XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement."
That is what we committed to.
Precisely. Vague committments to have an LPF but no specific agreement on how it would legally operate. CETA has an LPF and that is the precedence that the UK negotiators want to follow. Indeed that is in fitting with what was agreed in the PD.
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Ugh. How can anyone justify suporting this corpulent shitsack? Not letting this twat get down to Westminster and get his mug on the TV is the best argument yet I've seen for shutting the border.
Typical of the SNP and it’s supporters. Really unpleasant politics.
Of course the English hating Scottish nationalists were at the border recently shouting ‘fuck,off back to England’ at the cars driving past.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
I was working in Edinburgh at the time of the vote (by the way I didn't vote). The feeling I got (and this is purely anecdotal) amongst those who I believe were non-aligned but probably voted 'no', was not one of happiness or even relief. It was a sort of sharpness and almost guilt, like really they wished they'd had more bottle. It never felt like the end of the argument, because it was not people really feeling at home in the union.
That is a clear eyed and somewhat gloomy depiction of 2014 for someone who's invariably pro Union. Can I ask (without any intention to troll), can you see the current crop of Unionists managing to increase that sense of comfort within the Union? Sunak alone seems to have some meager positive currency, as it were, but Gove, BJ, Galloway(!) etc seem to inspire large dollops of amused contempt.
I gave it a like when it appeared. I'd be interested to know too.
On the Holyrood metric of 'let's have him/her as leader because there's no one else left', it looks like Gove will lead Bettertogether II by default. This below will be played on a loop, no doubt to cries of 'Gove's the man the Nats REALLY fear!'.
Since when have Scottish people not been allowed to make fun of other Scottish people?
Never obviously, since there we have a Scots person making fun of other Scottish people. By the same token people are allowed to bring up that 'making fun' as much as they like.
Of course in right wing snowflake world, highlighting what people do and say is not allowing them to do and say stuff.
Gove isn't, that is why he has been secretly meeting other Unionist parties.
From what I understand there is a serious prospect the Scottish Conservatives will not stand at Holyrood in 2021 in constituency seats which they do not already hold or were not in second place in in 2016 and obviously they would hope Labour and the LDs would reciprocate in Tory held Holyrood constituency seats but still obviously nothing confirmed yet
As a bit of fun on a Saturday afternoon, imagine this:
It's 2013 and Nick Clegg meets David Cameron and says:
"Prime Minister, I think the Coalition is doing a great job and I'd like it to continue into a second Parliament but that can only happen if a Lib Dem presence is guaranteed and I am aware your Party is steeping up its campaigning in seats held by my Party.
I offer you this - a continuation of the Coalition in the next Parliament but all Conservative campaigning has to end in seats currently held by the Liberal Democrats. We will do the same in Conservative seats and will not stand candidates against sitting Conservative MPs. In return, I would expect no Conservative candidate in seats held by my party.
As for seats held by Labour, if your party is the challenger, we will stand aside but if we are in second place based on the 2010 results, I would expect the Conservatives to stand aside.
If the Coalition is returned with a majority, we would support a referendum on the renegotiated basis of Britain's membership of the European Union. The Liberal Democrats would support continued membership and would campaign on that basis but the Conservative Party's position is for you to decide."
Do you think Cameron would or should have accepted such a proposal?
Does anyone know what the weather forecast is at the Ageas Bowl for the next few days?
Without wanting to jinx our batsmen I'm enjoying this innings and its only Day 2 so I'm hopeful they don't feel the pressure for an early declaration later today if they're still batting.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
I was working in Edinburgh at the time of the vote (by the way I didn't vote). The feeling I got (and this is purely anecdotal) amongst those who I believe were non-aligned but probably voted 'no', was not one of happiness or even relief. It was a sort of sharpness and almost guilt, like really they wished they'd had more bottle. It never felt like the end of the argument, because it was not people really feeling at home in the union.
That is a clear eyed and somewhat gloomy depiction of 2014 for someone who's invariably pro Union. Can I ask (without any intention to troll), can you see the current crop of Unionists managing to increase that sense of comfort within the Union? Sunak alone seems to have some meager positive currency, as it were, but Gove, BJ, Galloway(!) etc seem to inspire large dollops of amused contempt.
I gave it a like when it appeared. I'd be interested to know too.
On the Holyrood metric of 'let's have him/her as leader because there's no one else left', it looks like Gove will lead Bettertogether II by default. This below will be played on a loop, no doubt to cries of 'Gove's the man the Nats REALLY fear!'.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
Gove isn't, that is why he has been secretly meeting other Unionist parties.
From what I understand there is a serious prospect the Scottish Conservatives will not stand at Holyrood in 2021 in constituency seats which they do not already hold or were not in second place in in 2016 and obviously they would hope Labour and the LDs would reciprocate in Tory held Holyrood constituency seats but still obviously nothing confirmed yet
As a bit of fun on a Saturday afternoon, imagine this:
It's 2013 and Nick Clegg meets David Cameron and says:
"Prime Minister, I think the Coalition is doing a great job and I'd like it to continue into a second Parliament but that can only happen if a Lib Dem presence is guaranteed and I am aware your Party is steeping up its campaigning in seats held by my Party.
I offer you this - a continuation of the Coalition in the next Parliament but all Conservative campaigning has to end in seats currently held by the Liberal Democrats. We will do the same in Conservative seats and will not stand candidates against sitting Conservative MPs. In return, I would expect no Conservative candidate in seats held by my party.
As for seats held by Labour, if your party is the challenger, we will stand aside but if we are in second place based on the 2010 results, I would expect the Conservatives to stand aside.
If the Coalition is returned with a majority, we would support a referendum on the renegotiated basis of Britain's membership of the European Union. The Liberal Democrats would support continued membership and would campaign on that basis but the Conservative Party's position is for you to decide."
Do you think Cameron would or should have accepted such a proposal?
Yes, he should have done. But he wouldn’t. He was too petrified of the barking mad hard Tory right.
Trump's speech is going to be fascinating. Will he seek to just shore up his base with an hour long rant about law and order and cities in flames whilst raving about communists taking over the democratic party? Or will he try to reach out to independents?
Gove isn't, that is why he has been secretly meeting other Unionist parties.
From what I understand there is a serious prospect the Scottish Conservatives will not stand at Holyrood in 2021 in constituency seats which they do not already hold or were not in second place in in 2016 and obviously they would hope Labour and the LDs would reciprocate in Tory held Holyrood constituency seats but still obviously nothing confirmed yet
As a bit of fun on a Saturday afternoon, imagine this:
It's 2013 and Nick Clegg meets David Cameron and says:
"Prime Minister, I think the Coalition is doing a great job and I'd like it to continue into a second Parliament but that can only happen if a Lib Dem presence is guaranteed and I am aware your Party is steeping up its campaigning in seats held by my Party.
I offer you this - a continuation of the Coalition in the next Parliament but all Conservative campaigning has to end in seats currently held by the Liberal Democrats. We will do the same in Conservative seats and will not stand candidates against sitting Conservative MPs. In return, I would expect no Conservative candidate in seats held by my party.
As for seats held by Labour, if your party is the challenger, we will stand aside but if we are in second place based on the 2010 results, I would expect the Conservatives to stand aside.
If the Coalition is returned with a majority, we would support a referendum on the renegotiated basis of Britain's membership of the European Union. The Liberal Democrats would support continued membership and would campaign on that basis but the Conservative Party's position is for you to decide."
Do you think Cameron would or should have accepted such a proposal?
No as he led half the polls and the existence of the country was not at stake, in Scotland the SNP lead the polls and the existence of the UK is at stake
Does anyone know what the weather forecast is at the Ageas Bowl for the next few days?
Without wanting to jinx our batsmen I'm enjoying this innings and its only Day 2 so I'm hopeful they don't feel the pressure for an early declaration later today if they're still batting.
Ugh. How can anyone justify suporting this corpulent shitsack? Not letting this twat get down to Westminster and get his mug on the TV is the best argument yet I've seen for shutting the border.
Typical of the SNP and it’s supporters. Really unpleasant politics.
Of course the English hating Scottish nationalists were at the border recently shouting ‘fuck,off back to England’ at the cars driving past.
Funny, thought you were all against personal abuse. One way traffic evidently.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Gove isn't, that is why he has been secretly meeting other Unionist parties.
From what I understand there is a serious prospect the Scottish Conservatives will not stand at Holyrood in 2021 in constituency seats which they do not already hold or were not in second place in in 2016 and obviously they would hope Laboe ur and the LDs would reciprocate in Tory held Holyrood constituency seats but still obviously nothing confirmed yet
As a bit of fun on a Saturday afternoon, imagine this:
It's 2013 and Nick Clegg meets David Cameron and says:
"Prime Minister, I think the Coalition is doing a great job and I'd like it to continue into a second Parliament but that can only happen if a Lib Dem presence is guaranteed and I am aware your Party is steeping up its campaigning in seats held by my Party.
I offer you this - a continuation of the Coalition in the next Parliament but all Conservative campaigning has to end in seats currently held by the Liberal Democrats. We will do the same in Conservative seats and will not stand candidates against sitting Conservative MPs. In return, I would expect no Conservative candidate in seats held by my party.
As for seats held by Labour, if your party is the challenger, we will stand aside but if we are in second place based on the 2010 results, I would expect the Conservatives to stand aside.
If the Coalition is returned with a majority, we would support a referendum on the renegotiated basis of Britain's membership of the European Union. The Liberal Democrats would support continued membership and would campaign on that basis but the Conservative Party's position is for you to decide."
Do you think Cameron would or should have accepted such a proposal?
Interesting question. He might have been tempted - but equally he might have been concerned as to whether the Lib Dems could be relied upon - even if Clegg meant it if the Lib Dems were in a position to work with Miliband then many like Vince Cable would want to do that.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Its not impossible. A Canadian style FTA that Barnier originally said was possible meets every single criteria. As Barnier said years ago. The criteria that exist make one type of trade agreement very possible.
Possible.
Depending on what is included, such as the LPF we agreed to in the WDA. That is what Barnier wants, us to stick to our word.
The same LPF conditions as Canada?
The LPF we agreed in the WDA PD.
Great. Just copy and paste the agreed WDA PD word-for-word into the new legal document and go with that. What's the issue?
Or did you forget the WDA PD was a political text and no legal LPF was agreed in the first place then? Which is the issue now.
The thing is we do not get to dictate the counter parties position.
It is why I expect no Trade Agreement, though there may be bare bones agreements on flights etc.
The other party can say what they want as can we - but objectively no LPF was legally agreed in the WDA PD last year and our ambition for a Canada style LPF is entirely in line with the text that was agreed last year.
You don't get to rewrite the WDA PD to claim it agreed things that were never agreed at all.
"XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement."
That is what we committed to.
Precisely. Vague committments to have an LPF but no specific agreement on how it would legally operate. CETA has an LPF and that is the precedence that the UK negotiators want to follow. Indeed that is in fitting with what was agreed in the PD.
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
Yes - Barnier yesterday made clear that any trade deal will be tied to an LPF - they're ignoring commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties
Re the cricket why have England not opened up and slogged to the boundary
Its a Test not a One Dayer?
Its only Day Two and there've been many boundaries and even sixes but there's no need to throw their bat away.
I know but this game is won unless the weather intervenes
Quick dash for runs then bowl them out twice
Nothing's won yet. Pakistan can bat and could still win from here. Hypothetically we could go all out for 500, they could be 100-1 tonight, get all out for 400 tomorrow, skittle us for 100 on day 4 setting themselves a target of 200 in the final innings for victory.
On the other hand we could keep playing as we are, still be batting tomorrow and comprehensively bat them out of the game - and have the option to enforce a declaration and have them batting for a second time already on day 4.
Interesting question. He might have been tempted - but equally he might have been concerned as to whether the Lib Dems could be relied upon - even if Clegg meant it if the Lib Dems were in a position to work with Miliband then many like Vince Cable would want to do that.
There would have been no Labour majority had the Coalition retained all its seats. As to whether Labour would have made gains in a Coalition coupon election I don't know but they would still have needed SNP support (I've not mentioned Scotland specifically in the scenario as the second big shock of 2015 was the SNP advance).
I also think having been in Coalition with the Conservatives since 2010, it's hard to see Labour wanting to give any succour to the LDs.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Its not impossible. A Canadian style FTA that Barnier originally said was possible meets every single criteria. As Barnier said years ago. The criteria that exist make one type of trade agreement very possible.
Possible.
Depending on what is included, such as the LPF we agreed to in the WDA. That is what Barnier wants, us to stick to our word.
The same LPF conditions as Canada?
The LPF we agreed in the WDA PD.
Great. Just copy and paste the agreed WDA PD word-for-word into the new legal document and go with that. What's the issue?
Or did you forget the WDA PD was a political text and no legal LPF was agreed in the first place then? Which is the issue now.
The thing is we do not get to dictate the counter parties position.
It is why I expect no Trade Agreement, though there may be bare bones agreements on flights etc.
The other party can say what they want as can we - but objectively no LPF was legally agreed in the WDA PD last year and our ambition for a Canada style LPF is entirely in line with the text that was agreed last year.
You don't get to rewrite the WDA PD to claim it agreed things that were never agreed at all.
"XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement."
That is what we committed to.
Precisely. Vague committments to have an LPF but no specific agreement on how it would legally operate. CETA has an LPF and that is the precedence that the UK negotiators want to follow. Indeed that is in fitting with what was agreed in the PD.
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
No, an extensive deal requires much more specific LPF and the first sentence emphasises that geography and integration make the UK a different kettle of fish to other FTAs.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Its not impossible. A Canadian style FTA that Barnier originally said was possible meets every single criteria. As Barnier said years ago. The criteria that exist make one type of trade agreement very possible.
Possible.
Depending on what is included, such as the LPF we agreed to in the WDA. That is what Barnier wants, us to stick to our word.
The same LPF conditions as Canada?
The LPF we agreed in the WDA PD.
Great. Just copy and paste the agreed WDA PD word-for-word into the new legal document and go with that. What's the issue?
Or did you forget the WDA PD was a political text and no legal LPF was agreed in the first place then? Which is the issue now.
The thing is we do not get to dictate the counter parties position.
It is why I expect no Trade Agreement, though there may be bare bones agreements on flights etc.
The other party can say what they want as can we - but objectively no LPF was legally agreed in the WDA PD last year and our ambition for a Canada style LPF is entirely in line with the text that was agreed last year.
You don't get to rewrite the WDA PD to claim it agreed things that were never agreed at all.
"XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement."
That is what we committed to.
Precisely. Vague committments to have an LPF but no specific agreement on how it would legally operate. CETA has an LPF and that is the precedence that the UK negotiators want to follow. Indeed that is in fitting with what was agreed in the PD.
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
No, an extensive deal requires much more specific LPF and the first sentence emphasises that geography and integration make the UK a different kettle of fish to other FTAs.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Its not impossible. A Canadian style FTA that Barnier originally said was possible meets every single criteria. As Barnier said years ago. The criteria that exist make one type of trade agreement very possible.
Possible.
Depending on what is included, such as the LPF we agreed to in the WDA. That is what Barnier wants, us to stick to our word.
The same LPF conditions as Canada?
The LPF we agreed in the WDA PD.
Great. Just copy and paste the agreed WDA PD word-for-word into the new legal document and go with that. What's the issue?
Or did you forget the WDA PD was a political text and no legal LPF was agreed in the first place then? Which is the issue now.
The thing is we do not get to dictate the counter parties position.
It is why I expect no Trade Agreement, though there may be bare bones agreements on flights etc.
The other party can say what they want as can we - but objectively no LPF was legally agreed in the WDA PD last year and our ambition for a Canada style LPF is entirely in line with the text that was agreed last year.
You don't get to rewrite the WDA PD to claim it agreed things that were never agreed at all.
"XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement."
That is what we committed to.
Precisely. Vague committments to have an LPF but no specific agreement on how it would legally operate. CETA has an LPF and that is the precedence that the UK negotiators want to follow. Indeed that is in fitting with what was agreed in the PD.
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
No, an extensive deal requires much more specific LPF and the first sentence emphasises that geography and integration make the UK a different kettle of fish to other FTAs.
Interesting question. He might have been tempted - but equally he might have been concerned as to whether the Lib Dems could be relied upon - even if Clegg meant it if the Lib Dems were in a position to work with Miliband then many like Vince Cable would want to do that.
There would have been no Labour majority had the Coalition retained all its seats. As to whether Labour would have made gains in a Coalition coupon election I don't know but they would still have needed SNP support (I've not mentioned Scotland specifically in the scenario as the second big shock of 2015 was the SNP advance).
I also think having been in Coalition with the Conservatives since 2010, it's hard to see Labour wanting to give any succour to the LDs.
Milliband didn't need to win many seats to potentially become Prime Minister. If he'd taken some off the Lib Dems and very few off the Tories then a Labour+LD coalition becomes viable.
As for whether Labour would want to give any succour to the LDs - its irrelevant the moment the votes are cast. If Milliband wanted to be PM and needed the LDs then he'd have no choice - and if the LDs were offered what they wanted (eg electoral reform or something else) then any promises Clegg had made be worthless.
England case data by specimen date - regional summation
So far, looks like after the Northampton episode we are back to a slow, steady increase.
Looks like a decrease this week to me.
Even if Northampton hadn't happened it was increasing anyway before and looks to me like the local lockdowns across the North West are now working, the North West seems to be the biggest change to me and Northampton isn't there.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Its not impossible. A Canadian style FTA that Barnier originally said was possible meets every single criteria. As Barnier said years ago. The criteria that exist make one type of trade agreement very possible.
Possible.
Depending on what is included, such as the LPF we agreed to in the WDA. That is what Barnier wants, us to stick to our word.
The same LPF conditions as Canada?
The LPF we agreed in the WDA PD.
Great. Just copy and paste the agreed WDA PD word-for-word into the new legal document and go with that. What's the issue?
Or did you forget the WDA PD was a political text and no legal LPF was agreed in the first place then? Which is the issue now.
The thing is we do not get to dictate the counter parties position.
It is why I expect no Trade Agreement, though there may be bare bones agreements on flights etc.
The other party can say what they want as can we - but objectively no LPF was legally agreed in the WDA PD last year and our ambition for a Canada style LPF is entirely in line with the text that was agreed last year.
You don't get to rewrite the WDA PD to claim it agreed things that were never agreed at all.
"XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement."
That is what we committed to.
Precisely. Vague committments to have an LPF but no specific agreement on how it would legally operate. CETA has an LPF and that is the precedence that the UK negotiators want to follow. Indeed that is in fitting with what was agreed in the PD.
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
No, an extensive deal requires much more specific LPF and the first sentence emphasises that geography and integration make the UK a different kettle of fish to other FTAs.
To @Theuniondivvie, you asked about Unionist politicians and whether any of them can help turn the tide and make us all feel we live in a union that belongs to us. I really have no idea. I'm not really sure if an individual is the solution. Showing up is a start. Even an abortive holiday where a grumpy farmer does a tabloid expose on your tent building is some sort of learning experience.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Its not impossible. A Canadian style FTA that Barnier originally said was possible meets every single criteria. As Barnier said years ago. The criteria that exist make one type of trade agreement very possible.
Possible.
Depending on what is included, such as the LPF we agreed to in the WDA. That is what Barnier wants, us to stick to our word.
The same LPF conditions as Canada?
The LPF we agreed in the WDA PD.
Great. Just copy and paste the agreed WDA PD word-for-word into the new legal document and go with that. What's the issue?
Or did you forget the WDA PD was a political text and no legal LPF was agreed in the first place then? Which is the issue now.
The thing is we do not get to dictate the counter parties position.
It is why I expect no Trade Agreement, though there may be bare bones agreements on flights etc.
The other party can say what they want as can we - but objectively no LPF was legally agreed in the WDA PD last year and our ambition for a Canada style LPF is entirely in line with the text that was agreed last year.
You don't get to rewrite the WDA PD to claim it agreed things that were never agreed at all.
"XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement."
That is what we committed to.
Precisely. Vague committments to have an LPF but no specific agreement on how it would legally operate. CETA has an LPF and that is the precedence that the UK negotiators want to follow. Indeed that is in fitting with what was agreed in the PD.
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
No, an extensive deal requires much more specific LPF and the first sentence emphasises that geography and integration make the UK a different kettle of fish to other FTAs.
I see that @HYUFD is claiming that voters at the last election voted for a hard Brexit.
Not so.
The Tory manifesto says this: “We will negotiate a trade agreement next year - one that strengthens our Union....”. Page 5 if anyone is interested.
Those who voted Tory did not vote for a hard Brexit ie an exit without any trade agreement with the EU.
That is if they believed a word the Tories told them, which given their record might be a tad foolish.
'We will keep the UK out of the single market, out of any form of customs union, and end the role of the European Court of Justice.
This future relationship will be one that allows us to: Take back control of our laws. Take back control of our money. Control our own trade policy. Introduce an Australian-style points based immigration system. Raise standards in areas like workers’ rights, animal welfare, agriculture and the environment. Ensure we are in full control of our fishing waters.
...and we will not extend the implementation period beyond December 2020.'
So we can have a trade deal but only provided the EU agrees to allow the UK to do all it wants to do in the future relationship
I’ve read page 5 in full. Indeed, I’ve read the entire manifesto in full. It categorically does not promise a Hard Brexit, which is what you claimed. Anyone reading this - and believing it - did not vote for a Hard Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers have consistently lied about what their ultimate destination was, from 2016 onwards. As you must have doubtless realised, since you voted Remain. The fact that they are lying now is no surprise.
Wrong. A hard Brexit by definition means leaving the single market and customs union which was precisely what the 2019 Tory manifesto promised.
The manifesto also said we could still do a trade deal with the EU true but also promised, for instance, to regain full control of our fishing waters, which is something the EU is refusing to budge on. If so the manifesto also promised no extension of the implementation period beyond December deal or no deal.
I agree that the Tory manifesto promised to have cake and eat it, promising a trade agreement yet setting criteria that make that impossible.
A WTO Brexit is the inevitable consequence of Brexit, anything softer was always a chimera, used by the Brexiteers to get over the line. If no European rules are to be applied there can be no Trade Deal. No leading Brexiteer has advocated anything like a soft Brexit since June 2016.
Its not impossible. A Canadian style FTA that Barnier originally said was possible meets every single criteria. As Barnier said years ago. The criteria that exist make one type of trade agreement very possible.
Possible.
Depending on what is included, such as the LPF we agreed to in the WDA. That is what Barnier wants, us to stick to our word.
The same LPF conditions as Canada?
The LPF we agreed in the WDA PD.
Great. Just copy and paste the agreed WDA PD word-for-word into the new legal document and go with that. What's the issue?
Or did you forget the WDA PD was a political text and no legal LPF was agreed in the first place then? Which is the issue now.
The thing is we do not get to dictate the counter parties position.
It is why I expect no Trade Agreement, though there may be bare bones agreements on flights etc.
The other party can say what they want as can we - but objectively no LPF was legally agreed in the WDA PD last year and our ambition for a Canada style LPF is entirely in line with the text that was agreed last year.
You don't get to rewrite the WDA PD to claim it agreed things that were never agreed at all.
"XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION 77. Given the Union and the United Kingdom's geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the future relationship must ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties. These commitments should prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages. To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters. The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards. In so doing, they should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement."
That is what we committed to.
Precisely. Vague committments to have an LPF but no specific agreement on how it would legally operate. CETA has an LPF and that is the precedence that the UK negotiators want to follow. Indeed that is in fitting with what was agreed in the PD.
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
No, an extensive deal requires much more specific LPF and the first sentence emphasises that geography and integration make the UK a different kettle of fish to other FTAs.
It does no such thing. It simply says there must be an LPF - but an LPF always occurs in detailed FTAs anyway.
Furthermore it explicitly states that the precise nature of the LPF is yet to be agreed and will need to be negotiated commensurate with the future relationship - also yet to be agreed.
PS it was the EUs choice to sequence the talks so that the future relationship (and the LPF as a result) are being negotiated last. They could have started these talks years ago but they chose not to do so.
England case data by specimen date - regional summation
So far, looks like after the Northampton episode we are back to a slow, steady increase.
Looks like a decrease this week to me.
Even if Northampton hadn't happened it was increasing anyway before and looks to me like the local lockdowns across the North West are now working, the North West seems to be the biggest change to me and Northampton isn't there.
Sigh (start hammering nails into bat)
The last 3-5 days are provisional.
since the cases bottomed out, we have been in a steady increase. The peak above the line is (largely) Northampton.......
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
@Big_G_NorthWales .... did you ever imagine yourself, a Conservative, putting up barriers to trade in a defiant defence of the right to have state subsidies?
@Big_G_NorthWales .... did you ever imagine yourself, a Conservative, putting up barriers to trade in a defiant defence of the right to have state subsidies?
I never envisaged our country would be held hostage by a large block we have voted to leave
Also we want a trade deal but the EU do not other than to bind us into their organisation
Normally I reject state aid, but covid has changed all that and the irony is that EU countries are already ignoring that rule
Biden has moved up to 74% chance on the 538 forecast, up from 71% a week ago. Not quite sure why - maybe the last couple of days of polling have been mostly good for Biden (although the model is supposed to discount a post-convention bounce) or maybe it's just as time goes by and Biden's lead remains and more polls happen, the uncertainty gets less.
Biden has moved up to 74% chance on the 538 forecast, up from 71% a week ago. Not quite sure why - maybe the last couple of days of polling have been mostly good for Biden (although the model is supposed to discount a post-convention bounce) or maybe it's just as time goes by and Biden's lead remains and more polls happen, the uncertainty gets less.
Punters don't seem to believe the latest polling. Trump has moved up to a 42.5% implied chance recently.
England should declare this. Monday and Tuesday look like washouts. They can’t lose from here, but if they bowl well in the last 2 hours of play they might win by an innings tomorrow.
Biden has moved up to 74% chance on the 538 forecast, up from 71% a week ago. Not quite sure why - maybe the last couple of days of polling have been mostly good for Biden (although the model is supposed to discount a post-convention bounce) or maybe it's just as time goes by and Biden's lead remains and more polls happen, the uncertainty gets less.
Punters don't seem to believe the latest polling. Trump has moved up to a 42.5% implied chance recently.
I wonder why though. Is there some good economic news/forecasts? Or do punters think that Trump will be able to do enough voter suppression to steal it? He's certainly been active on that front recently, so it would fit.
Edit: I actually trust the 538 forecast a bit more than punters, but haven't put any money on it. BUT I don't think the 538 forecast takes into account shenanigans at the postal service, for example.
England should declare this. Monday and Tuesday look like washouts. They can’t lose from here, but if they bowl well in the last 2 hours of play they might win by an innings tomorrow.
To @Theuniondivvie, you asked about Unionist politicians and whether any of them can help turn the tide and make us all feel we live in a union that belongs to us. I really have no idea. I'm not really sure if an individual is the solution. Showing up is a start. Even an abortive holiday where a grumpy farmer does a tabloid expose on your tent building is some sort of learning experience.
Thanks.
I agree turning up is better than not turning up, and every day should be a learning day.
In the event of indy ref II, if BJ actually gets off his arse and uses his fabled campaigning skills to talk to ordinary Scots, even it means he gets a royal slagging, I'll put him above Cameron on that aspect at least. Probably too much to expect him to debate Sturgeon, that'll be left to the Gover I'm sure.
The full results of the 323 person Pfizer 2 trial are also out, and their vaccine appears to generate similar immune responses to other vaccines, with fewer side effects. The key to this vaccine, the BioNTech one, is that it is the easiest and cheapestocheapest all the candidates to manufacture. If their Phase 3, completing in October, is positive, then people could start getting vaccinated in large numbers in November/December.
Biden has moved up to 74% chance on the 538 forecast, up from 71% a week ago. Not quite sure why - maybe the last couple of days of polling have been mostly good for Biden (although the model is supposed to discount a post-convention bounce) or maybe it's just as time goes by and Biden's lead remains and more polls happen, the uncertainty gets less.
Punters don't seem to believe the latest polling. Trump has moved up to a 42.5% implied chance recently.
I wonder why though. Is there some good economic news/forecasts? Or do punters think that Trump will be able to do enough voter suppression to steal it? He's certainly been active on that front recently, so it would fit.
Edit: I actually trust the 538 forecast a bit more than punters, but haven't put any money on it. BUT I don't think the 538 forecast takes into account shenanigans at the postal service, for example.
The Wunderwaffe of a vaccine? Even if there's something viable by the end of the year, it'll take some framing to make it a gamechanger.
England case data by specimen date - regional summation
So far, looks like after the Northampton episode we are back to a slow, steady increase.
Looks like a decrease this week to me.
Even if Northampton hadn't happened it was increasing anyway before and looks to me like the local lockdowns across the North West are now working, the North West seems to be the biggest change to me and Northampton isn't there.
Sigh (start hammering nails into bat)
The last 3-5 days are provisional.
since the cases bottomed out, we have been in a steady increase. The peak above the line is (largely) Northampton.......
The colour coding doesn't seem to show the peak above the line as being largely Northampton - and the biggest drop in the colour coding is the North West. Even if the last 3-5 days are provisional it doesn't look like it will be back above the line.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
@Big_G_NorthWales .... did you ever imagine yourself, a Conservative, putting up barriers to trade in a defiant defence of the right to have state subsidies?
I never envisaged our country would be held hostage by a large block we have voted to leave
How did you envisage the negotiations of a trade agreement would proceed then?
England should declare this. Monday and Tuesday look like washouts. They can’t lose from here, but if they bowl well in the last 2 hours of play they might win by an innings tomorrow.
They won’t, of course, but they should.
I disagree. England can lose from here, they're not likely to but they can.
If Buttler goes out then I would want England to start swinging the bat much more looking to declare, but otherwise keep playing naturally see see if he too can get his double-century, build an insurmountable total - crush the Pakistani batsmen's spirits and then look to enforce the follow-on.
The fact that this isn't a surprise, or even headline news, shows how successfully Trump has normalised the most ugly and bonkers behaviour. And millions of people are going to vote for this arse.
I am willing to bet that this "unionist alliance" will work just as well as Unite to Remain.
Spoiler: awfully.
The key difference would be Labour or the LDs did not stand down their candidates against the Tories, the Scottish Tories would still stand down their candidates against the SNP where they are not the main challengers.
Unionist parties also would benefit still from the PR top up list unlike at Westminster
England should declare this. Monday and Tuesday look like washouts. They can’t lose from here, but if they bowl well in the last 2 hours of play they might win by an innings tomorrow.
They won’t, of course, but they should.
I disagree. England can lose from here, they're not likely to but they can.
If Buttler goes out then I would want England to start swinging the bat much more looking to declare, but otherwise keep playing naturally see see if he too can get his double-century, build an insurmountable total - crush the Pakistani batsmen's spirits and then look to enforce the follow-on.
I will assume you haven’t seen the weather forecast.
There is no realistic way Pakistan could put enough runs on the board to bowl England out twice in the time available.
"‘This is an unfolding disaster. My advice? Don’t get cancer in 2020’
A misplaced obsession with Covid-19 fuelled by vested interests is killing tens of thousands, the leading oncologist Karol Sikora tells Rhys Blakely" (£)
another example of where our disproportionate response to virus is now doing real harm.
Thank goodness I’m in Spain where my diagnosis was in the first few weeks of The outbreak and my treatment has proceeded without delay, apart from the hospitalization after the first dose of chemo. I think if you’re waiting for a new hip you may have had to wait but most treatments Appear to be progressing as normal.
I believe even in the UK cancer treatment is still prioritised, it is elective surgery that has been pushed back by Covid patients
Cancer targets are unchanged, albeit often missed. Cancer referrals are down by 50% though.
That is very sad. Surely there is no reason now why the GP service should not be being provided through a mix of online/telephone and direct consultations.
Anecdote alert!
According to the doctors at the hospital, when I took my mother-in-law in, they were actively seeking patients. Referrals were massively down, and no-shows for booked treatments and operations were very high.
My GP put one of the admin staff on a task of ringing round people due to do to hospital to persuade them to go. Anyone who was doubtful, she then arranged to call herself.
My wife has been waiting some months for CT scan and consultant says queue is enormous and no idea when it will happen so having to just get it done privately. Had same issue with cardiologist.
Sorry to hear that - I know you were both quite poorly earlier this year - is she out of the woods now?
Hello, thanks for asking , I was only mild and been well since early on , Helen was much much worse but is a lot better now. She saw Cardiologist this week supposedly to get ready for procedure for heart flutter due to the pneumonia but appear sit has rest itself to normal rhythm so that is a big bonus and she can come off the blood thinners and beta blockers. Her lungs are a lot better but good way to go, consultant had reckoned at least a year and last x-rays looked better but really needs CT scan to tell how lungs are doing. She is desperate to get off the steroids which caused her lots of problems. Looking good though , she is just terrified of covid , assuming that was not what she actually had, she is picking up lots of bugs as her immune system is not great due to the steroids. Apologies for rambling. @CarlottaVance
Biden has moved up to 74% chance on the 538 forecast, up from 71% a week ago. Not quite sure why - maybe the last couple of days of polling have been mostly good for Biden (although the model is supposed to discount a post-convention bounce) or maybe it's just as time goes by and Biden's lead remains and more polls happen, the uncertainty gets less.
Punters don't seem to believe the latest polling. Trump has moved up to a 42.5% implied chance recently.
I wonder why though. Is there some good economic news/forecasts? Or do punters think that Trump will be able to do enough voter suppression to steal it? He's certainly been active on that front recently, so it would fit.
Edit: I actually trust the 538 forecast a bit more than punters, but haven't put any money on it. BUT I don't think the 538 forecast takes into account shenanigans at the postal service, for example.
The Wunderwaffe of a vaccine? Even if there's something viable by the end of the year, it'll take some framing to make it a gamechanger.
that's true, there's been some optimistic news on that front. I really hope Trump doesn't get the credit if something does appear before the election.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
It wouldn't, any statement of support for independence before polling day means deselection and replacement by a Unionist candidate.
The vast majority of Yes voting Labour voters defected to the SNP after 2014 anyway and are no longer Labour voters
Brexit shmexit... other than the extremists and obsessives, people are just tired of it all by now. Without movement on fish then WTO it shall be. Which will prove at a macro level to be a storm in a teacup. Still time for a compromise if Mutti steps in but at this point I’m not sure anyone much cares either way.
That sounds about right. It's old news, and there's not going to be a deal because the relatively loose relationship on the table isn't worth either side compromising its objectives. The EU demands close alignment (to stop the UK competing against it effectively, to assert the form of control that it expects across the whole continent, and because a successful Brexit would provide an exit plan for other members that might grow restive in future to follow,) and the UK Government has been elected under such terms that not only does it not want to give in, it couldn't yield even if it did.
Thus the Northern Ireland protocols survive - because the Government doesn't want to stir the hornet's nest on the peace process, the province is of peripheral value to it, and a hard border would wreck its relationship with the Americans - but beyond that there's not much else left to be discussed.
This is just the logical conclusion to everything that's happened since Cameron tried to negotiate a new relationship with the EU from within, and came away with nothing. At every stage the EU raises the hand and expects the UK to cave, but in the end the UK (other than in the special case of the Irish border, where it has sufficient motivation to give in) ends up not doing so, and is therefore pushed further and further away. And so, having started out basically wanting some modest tweaks to migration policy, Britain has ultimately ended up outside all of the EU's structures, whilst the EU has seen its north-western flank fall into the sea, taking its largest city and one of its key member states with it, and its project to unite the continent has been destroyed.
I would say that the moral of this story is all about the damage that inflexibility and an unwillingness to compromise can do, but then again the UK Government keeps throwing money and powers at Scotland and a fat lot of good that's done it. Perhaps, instead, the real story here is about the inevitable fate of those political structures that attempt to bring nations together? Sooner or later, either those nations have to merge into one seamless and virtually homogeneous whole - how many people still identify as Prussian, let alone favour secession from Germany? - or tensions between them will eventually break the whole structure apart. As with England and the EU, so with Scotland and the UK - once popular opinion in one state concludes that the centre of power is remote and acts in a manner inimical to its interests, then interest in and loyalty to the wider structure collapses and secession becomes a matter of when, not if.
Once the number of people who viewed the EU as poison, or at the very least a tedious burden that we could manage perfectly well without, passed a critical threshold then Brexit became inevitable.
The point that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists both miss is that Scotland did endorse the Union in 2014 by some margin. Brexit and Johnson have turned that support into antipathy so independence is now the majority opinion. No-one who voted Leave genuinely cares about the Union.
I was working in Edinburgh at the time of the vote (by the way I didn't vote). The feeling I got (and this is purely anecdotal) amongst those who I believe were non-aligned but probably voted 'no', was not one of happiness or even relief. It was a sort of sharpness and almost guilt, like really they wished they'd had more bottle. It never felt like the end of the argument, because it was not people really feeling at home in the union.
That is a clear eyed and somewhat gloomy depiction of 2014 for someone who's invariably pro Union. Can I ask (without any intention to troll), can you see the current crop of Unionists managing to increase that sense of comfort within the Union? Sunak alone seems to have some meager positive currency, as it were, but Gove, BJ, Galloway(!) etc seem to inspire large dollops of amused contempt.
I gave it a like when it appeared. I'd be interested to know too.
On the Holyrood metric of 'let's have him/her as leader because there's no one else left', it looks like Gove will lead Bettertogether II by default. This below will be played on a loop, no doubt to cries of 'Gove's the man the Nats REALLY fear!'.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
I hope it is a very painful No Deal totally owned by this government and its supporters, but I suspect that Cummings won't allow that.
Remain lost, get over it.
That’s all Brexiteers have. We won. That’s it.
No articulation of any benefits of Brexit, no adaptation to the current circumstances. No attempt to win anyone over or find a positive case.
Just we won, we will do it, to hell with the consequences and damn the rest of you.
I see the r rate for Remainerdepression is back on the rise.
He has a point. What's it all for? Other than fish obviously.
Who are we going to sell the fish to? We are closing off our main market for goods.
we can always eat more of it ourselves.
It will vary our diet from eating grass.
Brits do not like fish all that much. It is why we sell our fish.
Now, if we could develop a wild McDonalds burger that could be harvested (ideally living in a clamshell style bap) then no doubt we would eat every single one...
Actually Brits love fish but they only like a resticted range. A bit of education would do wonders to widening what we like.
They tried that in the war. Brexiters ought to be forcefed on snoek and rock salmon for the rest of their lives.
Your country needs YOU... to eat bloater paste!
Well, herring can't be deep-fried so we have to find some other way of making it 'easy'.
(But it shallow-fries very well after being dipped in oatmeal - had it with new potatoes a few days ago.)
Sounds yum.
If you have it with new ayrshire tatties it is very nice indeed. Not as popular as it once was.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
Indeed, and a Holyrood election is not a referendum, especially as the question is being explicitly framed by the SNP as one of authority to have a separate referendum.
England should declare this. Monday and Tuesday look like washouts. They can’t lose from here, but if they bowl well in the last 2 hours of play they might win by an innings tomorrow.
They won’t, of course, but they should.
I disagree. England can lose from here, they're not likely to but they can.
If Buttler goes out then I would want England to start swinging the bat much more looking to declare, but otherwise keep playing naturally see see if he too can get his double-century, build an insurmountable total - crush the Pakistani batsmen's spirits and then look to enforce the follow-on.
I will assume you haven’t seen the weather forecast.
There is no realistic way Pakistan could put enough runs on the board to bowl England out twice in the time available.
I did ask earlier. The forecast looks pretty reasonable apart from Tuesday. Its unlikely Pakistan could win from here, but Pakistan can bat and bowl and it is possible if England collapse in their innings.
Plus if we're to bowl them out twice while losing a day or more then enforcing the follow on could be critical. There's a major difference between 450 to 500 versus 550 to 600 for enforcing the follow-on.
Earlier reply to Big_G: Nothing's won yet. Pakistan can bat and could still win from here. Hypothetically we could go all out for 500, they could be 100-1 tonight, get all out for 400 tomorrow, skittle us for 100 on day 4 setting themselves a target of 200 in the final innings for victory.
On the other hand we could keep playing as we are, still be batting tomorrow and comprehensively bat them out of the game - and have the option to enforce a declaration follow-on and have them batting for a second time already on day 4.
Anyone any idea why testing capacity not being fully utilised?
More than half of them are from the food factory in Coupar.
Given it is a few small isolated clusters what point would extra testing elsewhere do. They are concentrating on the outbreaks and have then under supervision, testing, tracking and tracing etc very localised as they should be doing. There are a lot of idiots about that pontificate on stuff they have no clue about.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
Indeed, and a Holyrood election is not a referendum, especially as the question is being explicitly framed by the SNP as one of authority to have a separate referendum.
Its a hard thing to campaign against as Hague found with his 'save the pound' election - when Blair was saying there'd be a referendum.
Anyone any idea why testing capacity not being fully utilised?
Probably because people aren't coming forward to get tested.
If testing capacity were being fully utilised it would be worrying as it would mean demand was exceeding supply and people would have to go without testing who need it.
It is all down to two clusters , so no need to test the whole country.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
Indeed, and a Holyrood election is not a referendum, especially as the question is being explicitly framed by the SNP as one of authority to have a separate referendum.
Its a hard thing to campaign against as Hague found with his 'save the pound' election - when Blair was saying there'd be a referendum.
Indeed, though polling tends to show more Scots are in favour of having a referendum than actually voting yes in it, which I suppose ius logical (the timing is the main matter at question, for which covid is one reason).
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
Will never happen , stonewall SNP majority next year and Tories know it well, even with their dirty tricks it will not go down well. Would only drive even more Labour voters to indy camp.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
Will never happen , stonewall SNP majority next year and Tories know it well, even with their dirty tricks it will not go down well. Would only drive even more Labour voters to indy camp.
Great to see Nats so rattled, of course if Scottish Cons stand down in SNP held seats where the SNP vote is under 50% that gives a huge boost to Scottish Labour or LD chances of taking the seat
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
It wouldn't, any statement of support for independence before polling day means deselection and replacement by a Unionist candidate.
The vast majority of Yes voting Labour voters defected to the SNP after 2014 anyway and are no longer Labour voters
You really don't have any understanding of Scottish politics.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
Indeed, and a Holyrood election is not a referendum, especially as the question is being explicitly framed by the SNP as one of authority to have a separate referendum.
Its a hard thing to campaign against as Hague found with his 'save the pound' election - when Blair was saying there'd be a referendum.
Boris has said there will be no indyref2 while he is PM but obviously it is easier to prevent a Nationalist majority at Holyrood rather than have to go down the Madrid route which will be the last resort to ban indyref2
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
It wouldn't, any statement of support for independence before polling day means deselection and replacement by a Unionist candidate.
The vast majority of Yes voting Labour voters defected to the SNP after 2014 anyway and are no longer Labour voters
You really don't have any understanding of Scottish politics.
Comments
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
Without wanting to jinx our batsmen I'm enjoying this innings and its only Day 2 so I'm hopeful they don't feel the pressure for an early declaration later today if they're still batting.
Trump 2.36 / 2.38
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/22/politics/stormy-daniels-trump-judge-order/index.html
type in Southampton and there you are - 5 days (and NB wind warning coming up)
I am happy for Labour to be the Unionist Alliance challengers to the SNP across Glasgow and the Central Belt and most of Edinburgh bar central and West yes and would stand not a single Tory candidate in those constituency seats only on the list.
I would also support a Labour FM to keep out Sturgeon too yes.
Labour has won Edinburgh South through Tory support to keep out the SNP for instance
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.
The PD literally says that the precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relations, which we are now negotiating, but Barnier isn't wanting to stick with that. The UK is. Barnier is the one going against the PD.
Of course the English hating Scottish nationalists were at the border recently shouting ‘fuck,off back to England’ at the cars driving past.
Of course in right wing snowflake world, highlighting what people do and say is not allowing them to do and say stuff.
It's 2013 and Nick Clegg meets David Cameron and says:
"Prime Minister, I think the Coalition is doing a great job and I'd like it to continue into a second Parliament but that can only happen if a Lib Dem presence is guaranteed and I am aware your Party is steeping up its campaigning in seats held by my Party.
I offer you this - a continuation of the Coalition in the next Parliament but all Conservative campaigning has to end in seats currently held by the Liberal Democrats. We will do the same in Conservative seats and will not stand candidates against sitting Conservative MPs. In return, I would expect no Conservative candidate in seats held by my party.
As for seats held by Labour, if your party is the challenger, we will stand aside but if we are in second place based on the 2010 results, I would expect the Conservatives to stand aside.
If the Coalition is returned with a majority, we would support a referendum on the renegotiated basis of Britain's membership of the European Union. The Liberal Democrats would support continued membership and would campaign on that basis but the Conservative Party's position is for you to decide."
Do you think Cameron would or should have accepted such a proposal?
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/1526470/hold-for-provost-comments-government-teams-investigate-links-between-coupar-angus-factory-and-two-further-tayside-food-plants/
I suppose the fact that Pakistan must win but a draw is enough for England lessens the pressure for an early declaration.
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Its only Day Two and there've been many boundaries and even sixes but there's no need to throw their bat away.
Quick dash for runs then bowl them out twice
On the other hand we could keep playing as we are, still be batting tomorrow and comprehensively bat them out of the game - and have the option to enforce a declaration and have them batting for a second time already on day 4.
They do seem to be walking down the pitch now, maybe the skipper reads PB
I also think having been in Coalition with the Conservatives since 2010, it's hard to see Labour wanting to give any succour to the LDs.
250 up for Crawley with another boundary. 🏏
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1296740738898767877?s=20
"low quality agreement" still requires the LPF of "an extensive deal".
As for whether Labour would want to give any succour to the LDs - its irrelevant the moment the votes are cast. If Milliband wanted to be PM and needed the LDs then he'd have no choice - and if the LDs were offered what they wanted (eg electoral reform or something else) then any promises Clegg had made be worthless.
So far, looks like after the Northampton episode we are back to a slow, steady increase.
One more run and this is the highest score by an England no. 3 since 1936.
And with due respect to the great Wally Hammond, New Zealand were hardly Test standard in those days.
Even if Northampton hadn't happened it was increasing anyway before and looks to me like the local lockdowns across the North West are now working, the North West seems to be the biggest change to me and Northampton isn't there.
And of course the UK has access to the market even on WTO terms. Time approaching to walk away.
Yes - Barnier yesterday made clear that any trade deal will be tied to an LPF
In what way is that contrary to the PD?
Furthermore it explicitly states that the precise nature of the LPF is yet to be agreed and will need to be negotiated commensurate with the future relationship - also yet to be agreed.
PS it was the EUs choice to sequence the talks so that the future relationship (and the LPF as a result) are being negotiated last. They could have started these talks years ago but they chose not to do so.
The last 3-5 days are provisional.
since the cases bottomed out, we have been in a steady increase. The peak above the line is (largely) Northampton.......
The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship....
What Barnier effectively said yesterday:
The precise nature of commitments should be irrespective [of] the scope and depth of the future relationship....
The highest score for England since Cook’s 294 at Edgbaston.
And respect to the Pakistan players for acknowledging it.
Also we want a trade deal but the EU do not other than to bind us into their organisation
Normally I reject state aid, but covid has changed all that and the irony is that EU countries are already ignoring that rule
They won’t, of course, but they should.
Or do punters think that Trump will be able to do enough voter suppression to steal it? He's certainly been active on that front recently, so it would fit.
Edit: I actually trust the 538 forecast a bit more than punters, but haven't put any money on it. BUT I don't think the 538 forecast takes into account shenanigans at the postal service, for example.
I agree turning up is better than not turning up, and every day should be a learning day.
In the event of indy ref II, if BJ actually gets off his arse and uses his fabled campaigning skills to talk to ordinary Scots, even it means he gets a royal slagging, I'll put him above Cameron on that aspect at least. Probably too much to expect him to debate Sturgeon, that'll be left to the Gover I'm sure.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/22/trump-covid-clinical-trials-tweet-400183
The full results of the 323 person Pfizer 2 trial are also out, and their vaccine appears to generate similar immune responses to other vaccines, with fewer side effects. The key to this vaccine, the BioNTech one, is that it is the easiest and cheapestocheapest all the candidates to manufacture. If their Phase 3, completing in October, is positive, then people could start getting vaccinated in large numbers in November/December.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
Spoiler: awfully.
If Buttler goes out then I would want England to start swinging the bat much more looking to declare, but otherwise keep playing naturally see see if he too can get his double-century, build an insurmountable total - crush the Pakistani batsmen's spirits and then look to enforce the follow-on.
Unionist parties also would benefit still from the PR top up list unlike at Westminster
Despite the PD literally saying the opposite.
There is no realistic way Pakistan could put enough runs on the board to bowl England out twice in the time available.
Apologies for rambling.
@CarlottaVance
The vast majority of Yes voting Labour voters defected to the SNP after 2014 anyway and are no longer Labour voters
Plus if we're to bowl them out twice while losing a day or more then enforcing the follow on could be critical. There's a major difference between 450 to 500 versus 550 to 600 for enforcing the follow-on.
Earlier reply to Big_G:
Nothing's won yet. Pakistan can bat and could still win from here. Hypothetically we could go all out for 500, they could be 100-1 tonight, get all out for 400 tomorrow, skittle us for 100 on day 4 setting themselves a target of 200 in the final innings for victory.
On the other hand we could keep playing as we are, still be batting tomorrow and comprehensively bat them out of the game - and have the option to enforce a declaration follow-on and have them batting for a second time already on day 4.