It absolutely isn't. Taxpayers will end up shouldering the bill for more expensive, less good military hardware if we have a closed industry. It also won't be without retaliation from the US who would seize upon such a policy to freeze out British firms from the much more lucrative US military supply chain. It is a rubbish policy.
It's a pro-Britain policy, it's what the party needs to do
No it isn't, it's a policy which would result in British companies being frozen out of international trade. It's an absolute disaster. It's the opposite of pro-Britain, it is, and I hate using the phrase, a horribly little-Englander policy which denies the existence of overseas trade and that overseas trade is more valuable to our companies and workers than domestic trade in certain industries.
It's showing the party has changed and is interested in defence and security. It's posturing but clever politics
No, it's showing that the party is more interested in posturing than leading. The right thing to say is call out British companies who see the taxpayer as a cash piñata and asking why they are charging so much more for equivalent hardware, not just asking for the state to sign a blank cheque.
I think I actually agree with you but "built in Britain" and a bit of flag waving is an easy sell to the public
It isn't, because the companies would bitch about the policy. This is actually the kind of policy that the level playing field clause in trade agreements are about. It would be incompatible with a free trade deal with the EU, Australia, the US, Canada and many other countries. Preferring domestic manufacturing in tender processes is a huge minefield and it usually has few to no winners as companies get fat from domestic contracts and become unable to compete in the international markets leading to their eventual decline and all the while the taxpayer bleeds by overpaying for goods and services.
Either Labour is in favour of playing by international trade rules or it isn't and wants to wave flags. I'd suggest that the latter will lose more votes than it gains.
In this recession we should retain jobs here at every opportunity
By using the defence budget for industrial welfare they are retaining a small number of relatively highly paid jobs. It's doing nothing for the poorest - the unskilled and unemployed - which is no surprise as the tories utterly despise them.
And on defence matters, it is of course a big step forward to have a leader of the Labour Party who doesn't utterly despise that subsection of the poorest in society who decided to join HMF.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
It absolutely isn't. Taxpayers will end up shouldering the bill for more expensive, less good military hardware if we have a closed industry. It also won't be without retaliation from the US who would seize upon such a policy to freeze out British firms from the much more lucrative US military supply chain. It is a rubbish policy.
It's a pro-Britain policy, it's what the party needs to do
No it isn't, it's a policy which would result in British companies being frozen out of international trade. It's an absolute disaster. It's the opposite of pro-Britain, it is, and I hate using the phrase, a horribly little-Englander policy which denies the existence of overseas trade and that overseas trade is more valuable to our companies and workers than domestic trade in certain industries.
It's showing the party has changed and is interested in defence and security. It's posturing but clever politics
No, it's showing that the party is more interested in posturing than leading. The right thing to say is call out British companies who see the taxpayer as a cash piñata and asking why they are charging so much more for equivalent hardware, not just asking for the state to sign a blank cheque.
I think I actually agree with you but "built in Britain" and a bit of flag waving is an easy sell to the public
Only for provincial idiots, which I suspect may be too many.
Britain succeeds and always has on the global stage. Defence is one of our export strengths, so why would we look to cut that off?
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
First time in a long while that Frank Luntz has not been selling snake oil when he opens his mouth...
“What do Republicans believe? What does it mean to be a Republican?” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/24/republicanmeltdown-trump-convention-400039 ...When I pressed, Luntz sounded as exasperated as the student whose question I was relaying. “Look, I’m the one guy who’s going to give you a straight answer. I don’t give a shit—I had a stroke in January, so there’s nothing anyone can do to me to make my life suck,” he said. “I’ve tried to give you an answer and I can’t do it. You can ask it any different way. But I don’t know the answer. For the first time in my life, I don’t know the answer.”...
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
Moving in to "liberate" Belatus on the basis of an undertanding with the opposition that they'll sign up to a closer relationship with Russia would be absolutely win/win for Putin - lots of Russians would feel that made up for a hell of a lot, as if Scotland had left the UK and then decided enthusiastically to rejoin.
Whether they think such an understanding is achievable and bankable is probably the key question. We've already reached the point that nobody will be much fussed if Russia moved in, but if they can't find reliable allies then they'll probably reckon it's not worth the hassle.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
The Government has spent the last 3 years promoting flag waving nonsense with little tangible benefit. Funny how its supporters are now suddenly rattled that Labour are doing the same thing.
Please cite a single international law that says we need to take refugees who have come directly from a safe country?
It is domestic law, not international law, that applies there. International law applies to asylum seekers coming "directly" from a country where they are persecuted.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
Yes, but that's not going to help Lukashenko. He's organising support rallies of his own (although they haven't gone as he would wish). There's a non-trivial chance that to stay in power he'll need military support from Russia. So far, I see no sign of that.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
The Government has spent the last 3 years promoting flag waving nonsense with little tangible benefit. Funny how its supporters are now suddenly rattled that Labour are doing the same thing.
ShockedPikachu.jpg methinks
I don't recall the Government ever having "built in Britain" policies that would devastate our exports.
If they had, I would oppose it.
If you think "flag = good" or "flag = bad" then you are delusional. Simply sticking a flag on a policy doesn't make it good or bad.
The Government has spent the last 3 years promoting flag waving nonsense with little tangible benefit. Funny how its supporters are now suddenly rattled that Labour are doing the same thing.
ShockedPikachu.jpg methinks
I don't recall the Government ever having "built in Britain" policies that would devastate our exports.
If they had, I would oppose it.
If you think "flag = good" or "flag = bad" then you are delusional. Simply sticking a flag on a policy doesn't make it good or bad.
It absolutely isn't. Taxpayers will end up shouldering the bill for more expensive, less good military hardware if we have a closed industry. It also won't be without retaliation from the US who would seize upon such a policy to freeze out British firms from the much more lucrative US military supply chain. It is a rubbish policy.
It's a pro-Britain policy, it's what the party needs to do
No it isn't, it's a policy which would result in British companies being frozen out of international trade. It's an absolute disaster. It's the opposite of pro-Britain, it is, and I hate using the phrase, a horribly little-Englander policy which denies the existence of overseas trade and that overseas trade is more valuable to our companies and workers than domestic trade in certain industries.
It's showing the party has changed and is interested in defence and security. It's posturing but clever politics
No, it's showing that the party is more interested in posturing than leading. The right thing to say is call out British companies who see the taxpayer as a cash piñata and asking why they are charging so much more for equivalent hardware, not just asking for the state to sign a blank cheque.
I think I actually agree with you but "built in Britain" and a bit of flag waving is an easy sell to the public
Only for provincial idiots, which I suspect may be too many.
Britain succeeds and always has on the global stage. Defence is one of our export strengths, so why would we look to cut that off?
Will of the people, though.
(There's a serious problem for both parties here. BoJo is, at heart, a populist. So, in a different, creepier way, are Govey and Dom. That's an easy way to win elections, but rarely a good way to navigate how to run your government once you have won elections.
The problem for the Conservatives is whether and how they have the chops to do unpopular things... things that their supporters won't like. Test case 1 is likely to be their changes to the planning system.
The problem for Labour is how to win without going down the populist rabbit hole. It's not easy if you are up against a shameless populist and things haven't fallen to pieces yet. Buy British is a good slogan, but less good government.)
Due to devolution there are differences in NI, Scotland and Wales. But NI is legally within UK’s customs territory as per NI protocol. If Stormont doesn't like its devolved differences it should vote to change them, as per devolution - there is no constitutional issue here.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
Yes, but that's not going to help Lukashenko. He's organising support rallies of his own (although they haven't gone as he would wish). There's a non-trivial chance that to stay in power he'll need military support from Russia. So far, I see no sign of that.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
And time is on his side, not the protestors'.
I think that he is finished. This is like the collapse of eastern Europe in 1989 all over again. Only significant military intervention can stop the collapse of his regime.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
Belarus has the world's longest serving Government-in-Exile, since 1919.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
Yes, but that's not going to help Lukashenko. He's organising support rallies of his own (although they haven't gone as he would wish). There's a non-trivial chance that to stay in power he'll need military support from Russia. So far, I see no sign of that.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
And time is on his side, not the protestors'.
I think that he is finished. This is like the collapse of eastern Europe in 1989 all over again. Only significant military intervention can stop the collapse of his regime.
It would be nice to think so.
His bigger problem though is even if he stays in power it's very hard to see what he does next. He's going to be under heavy sanctions, his regime is bankrupt and his people despise him.
So the Russians would become vital to him as a source of aid and economic support in that scenario and that's presumably why he's rambling about NATO and love-bombing Putin.
What will become of the Union Jack if Scotland secedes? It’s a cracking flag.
Maybe the blue can be taken out and the green of Wales finally added.
Don't forget to leave a space for orange when Ireland inevitably begs to rejoin the (r)UK.
I have to say, that is one of the more odd things I see Brexiteers saying, that Ireland will be next to leave and they will want to rejoin the UK. Very strange
Indeed. The Irish government minister interviewed on R4 last week was very clear about this. Ireland feels it has benefited considerably from EU membership, and may be even better positioned after Brexit begins to hit the UK.
I’ve don’t think I’ve ever seen a serious Brexiteer seriously say that RoI would rejoin the U.K. (except the the context of setting out all of the possible solutions to partition).
there are many theoretical reasons for the unification of Ireland (of which RoI rejoining the U.K. is a specific sub case). But it’s rather unlikely to happen near term.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Calls to patriotism are the staple diet of the beleaguered Conservative but beyond that is the undertone that’s if you don’t support the Conservatives you are somehow unpatriotic.
Patriotism exists in all parties - people of all political stripes and none love this country and want the best for it and its people.
The Government has spent the last 3 years promoting flag waving nonsense with little tangible benefit. Funny how its supporters are now suddenly rattled that Labour are doing the same thing.
ShockedPikachu.jpg methinks
Indeed. The future of Brexit Britain could be Free Trade or it could be protectionism. I suspect the latter polls well in the purple wall.
For all the talk of Brexit over the last 5 years, this divide is curiously unaddressed.
Calls to patriotism are the staple diet of the beleaguered Conservative but beyond that is the undertone that’s if you don’t support the Conservatives you are somehow unpatriotic.
Patriotism exists in all parties - people of all political stripes and none love this country and want the best for it and its people.
We may disagree on the means but not the ends.
But Corbyn didn't.
Unfortunately, that means Labour have work to do on this.
Just as they do on anti-semitism, Brexit, private ownership, tax, education...
This looks at exports both ways, not imports, which is a nonsense. Exports are seen as necessary and positive, but don't forget that keeping more currency by selling products on the domestic market is every bit as beneficial.
What we could look at is UK expenditure on EU products and services as a percentage of our overall financial losses. And EU's expenditure on British goods and services as a percentage of its overall financial losses. We'd see massive potential for import substitution in both real and percentage terms for the UK. Far less for the EU.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
Yes, but that's not going to help Lukashenko. He's organising support rallies of his own (although they haven't gone as he would wish). There's a non-trivial chance that to stay in power he'll need military support from Russia. So far, I see no sign of that.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
And time is on his side, not the protestors'.
I think that he is finished. This is like the collapse of eastern Europe in 1989 all over again. Only significant military intervention can stop the collapse of his regime.
It would be nice to think so.
His bigger problem though is even if he stays in power it's very hard to see what he does next. He's going to be under heavy sanctions, his regime is bankrupt and his people despise him.
So the Russians would become vital to him as a source of aid and economic support in that scenario and that's presumably why he's rambling about NATO and love-bombing Putin.
His regime has been dependent upon Russian subsidies and cheap fuel for a long time. He cannot survive without it. I don't think you are right about the opposition being more pro Moscow. Lavrov certainly doesn't seem to think so and is quite critical of them.
What will become of the Union Jack if Scotland secedes? It’s a cracking flag.
Maybe the blue can be taken out and the green of Wales finally added.
Don't forget to leave a space for orange when Ireland inevitably begs to rejoin the (r)UK.
I have to say, that is one of the more odd things I see Brexiteers saying, that Ireland will be next to leave and they will want to rejoin the UK. Very strange
Indeed. The Irish government minister interviewed on R4 last week was very clear about this. Ireland feels it has benefited considerably from EU membership, and may be even better positioned after Brexit begins to hit the UK.
I’ve don’t think I’ve ever seen a serious Brexiteer seriously say that RoI would rejoin the U.K. (except the the context of setting out all of the possible solutions to partition).
there are many theoretical reasons for the unification of Ireland (of which RoI rejoining the U.K. is a specific sub case). But it’s rather unlikely to happen near term.
The boss of Ryanair (I believe) was the one who kicked off the conversation about Brexit pulling ROI out of the EU (though not into a political union with the UK). He is neither British, nor a Brexiteer. No idea if it's likely, but I trust his assessment more than a party line from a politician.
The Government has spent the last 3 years promoting flag waving nonsense with little tangible benefit. Funny how its supporters are now suddenly rattled that Labour are doing the same thing.
ShockedPikachu.jpg methinks
Indeed. The future of Brexit Britain could be Free Trade or it could be protectionism. I suspect the latter polls well in the purple wall.
For all the talk of Brexit over the last 5 years, this divide is curiously unaddressed.
At the moment the signs are that it will be rather haphazard. We'll have protectionism where a particular industry has close personal links to the inner circle of the ruling party, and we'll have free trade otherwise.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
Yes, but that's not going to help Lukashenko. He's organising support rallies of his own (although they haven't gone as he would wish). There's a non-trivial chance that to stay in power he'll need military support from Russia. So far, I see no sign of that.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
And time is on his side, not the protestors'.
I think that he is finished. This is like the collapse of eastern Europe in 1989 all over again. Only significant military intervention can stop the collapse of his regime.
Significant military intervention did stop a Peoples Revolution in China in 1989, though. I'm not claiming that Belarus is China, but we should not assume that the regime is not going to be aggressive with the police and military.
I remember that the reaction in China made the opening of the Austria/Hungary border and the East German refugees in Prage Summer/Autumn 1989 meant that the tension at the time was much higher than is often presented in films/documentaries in retrospect.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Are the government overplaying their hand on the ‘little risk’ in returning to school? It has the potential to seriously rebound and slap them in the face. If there are multiple school closures with associated infections it will be described as another disaster. I’m not saying they shouldn’t open but the positioning strikes me as rather silly.
The Government needs two things to occur, firstly schools need to be open, secondly parents need to be encouraged to get their children to go back to school.
And by the way this applies across all four nations and is backed by all the First Ministers and Boris
Scottish schools have been back for weeks. They are also in discussions re whether to introduce masks for teachers and pupils in certain areas, likely to happen.
What will become of the Union Jack if Scotland secedes? It’s a cracking flag.
Maybe the blue can be taken out and the green of Wales finally added.
Don't forget to leave a space for orange when Ireland inevitably begs to rejoin the (r)UK.
I have to say, that is one of the more odd things I see Brexiteers saying, that Ireland will be next to leave and they will want to rejoin the UK. Very strange
Indeed. The Irish government minister interviewed on R4 last week was very clear about this. Ireland feels it has benefited considerably from EU membership, and may be even better positioned after Brexit begins to hit the UK.
I’ve don’t think I’ve ever seen a serious Brexiteer seriously say that RoI would rejoin the U.K. (except the the context of setting out all of the possible solutions to partition).
there are many theoretical reasons for the unification of Ireland (of which RoI rejoining the U.K. is a specific sub case). But it’s rather unlikely to happen near term.
The boss of Ryanair (I believe) was the one who kicked off the conversation about Brexit pulling ROI out of the EU (though not into a political union with the UK). He is neither British, nor a Brexiteer. No idea if it's likely, but I trust his assessment more than a party line from a politician.
This is his assessment:
The Ryanair chief was less worried about the Brexit negotiations, as he believes the EU will get exactly what it wants because “the Brits have no negotiating f*cking power.”
“This will finish in only two ways,” O’Leary said. “The British walk away, in which case they’ll be abandoned and there will be no food in the supermarket f*cking shelves. There will be riots in the streets and [Prime Minister Boris] Johnson will be out of power.”
“Or they will roll over at the end of the day … they will sell whatever deal they can f*cking do.”
What will become of the Union Jack if Scotland secedes? It’s a cracking flag.
Maybe the blue can be taken out and the green of Wales finally added.
Don't forget to leave a space for orange when Ireland inevitably begs to rejoin the (r)UK.
I have to say, that is one of the more odd things I see Brexiteers saying, that Ireland will be next to leave and they will want to rejoin the UK. Very strange
Indeed. The Irish government minister interviewed on R4 last week was very clear about this. Ireland feels it has benefited considerably from EU membership, and may be even better positioned after Brexit begins to hit the UK.
I’ve don’t think I’ve ever seen a serious Brexiteer seriously say that RoI would rejoin the U.K. (except the the context of setting out all of the possible solutions to partition).
there are many theoretical reasons for the unification of Ireland (of which RoI rejoining the U.K. is a specific sub case). But it’s rather unlikely to happen near term.
The boss of Ryanair (I believe) was the one who kicked off the conversation about Brexit pulling ROI out of the EU (though not into a political union with the UK). He is neither British, nor a Brexiteer. No idea if it's likely, but I trust his assessment more than a party line from a politician.
This is his assessment:
The Ryanair chief was less worried about the Brexit negotiations, as he believes the EU will get exactly what it wants because “the Brits have no negotiating f*cking power.”
“This will finish in only two ways,” O’Leary said. “The British walk away, in which case they’ll be abandoned and there will be no food in the supermarket f*cking shelves. There will be riots in the streets and [Prime Minister Boris] Johnson will be out of power.”
“Or they will roll over at the end of the day … they will sell whatever deal they can f*cking do.”
What will become of the Union Jack if Scotland secedes? It’s a cracking flag.
Maybe the blue can be taken out and the green of Wales finally added.
Don't forget to leave a space for orange when Ireland inevitably begs to rejoin the (r)UK.
I have to say, that is one of the more odd things I see Brexiteers saying, that Ireland will be next to leave and they will want to rejoin the UK. Very strange
Indeed. The Irish government minister interviewed on R4 last week was very clear about this. Ireland feels it has benefited considerably from EU membership, and may be even better positioned after Brexit begins to hit the UK.
I’ve don’t think I’ve ever seen a serious Brexiteer seriously say that RoI would rejoin the U.K. (except the the context of setting out all of the possible solutions to partition).
there are many theoretical reasons for the unification of Ireland (of which RoI rejoining the U.K. is a specific sub case). But it’s rather unlikely to happen near term.
The boss of Ryanair (I believe) was the one who kicked off the conversation about Brexit pulling ROI out of the EU (though not into a political union with the UK). He is neither British, nor a Brexiteer. No idea if it's likely, but I trust his assessment more than a party line from a politician.
This is his assessment:
The Ryanair chief was less worried about the Brexit negotiations, as he believes the EU will get exactly what it wants because “the Brits have no negotiating f*cking power.”
“This will finish in only two ways,” O’Leary said. “The British walk away, in which case they’ll be abandoned and there will be no food in the supermarket f*cking shelves. There will be riots in the streets and [Prime Minister Boris] Johnson will be out of power.”
“Or they will roll over at the end of the day … they will sell whatever deal they can f*cking do.”
If O'Leary is saying that, then you should expect the opposite.
If it does turn out that there is no food on the shelves then he is right. There will be social unrest. We nearly had it over toilet rolls. Now imagine that with fresh food.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
Yes, but that's not going to help Lukashenko. He's organising support rallies of his own (although they haven't gone as he would wish). There's a non-trivial chance that to stay in power he'll need military support from Russia. So far, I see no sign of that.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
And time is on his side, not the protestors'.
I think that he is finished. This is like the collapse of eastern Europe in 1989 all over again. Only significant military intervention can stop the collapse of his regime.
Significant military intervention did stop a Peoples Revolution in China in 1989, though. I'm not claiming that Belarus is China, but we should not assume that the regime is not going to be aggressive with the police and military.
I remember that the reaction in China made the opening of the Austria/Hungary border and the East German refugees in Prage Summer/Autumn 1989 meant that the tension at the time was much higher than is often presented in films/documentaries in retrospect.
It was undoubtedly a very dangerous time and we were fortunate that in Gorbachev we had someone rational in charge of the Soviet Union. It could have been very different.
What will become of the Union Jack if Scotland secedes? It’s a cracking flag.
Maybe the blue can be taken out and the green of Wales finally added.
Don't forget to leave a space for orange when Ireland inevitably begs to rejoin the (r)UK.
I have to say, that is one of the more odd things I see Brexiteers saying, that Ireland will be next to leave and they will want to rejoin the UK. Very strange
Indeed. The Irish government minister interviewed on R4 last week was very clear about this. Ireland feels it has benefited considerably from EU membership, and may be even better positioned after Brexit begins to hit the UK.
I’ve don’t think I’ve ever seen a serious Brexiteer seriously say that RoI would rejoin the U.K. (except the the context of setting out all of the possible solutions to partition).
there are many theoretical reasons for the unification of Ireland (of which RoI rejoining the U.K. is a specific sub case). But it’s rather unlikely to happen near term.
The boss of Ryanair (I believe) was the one who kicked off the conversation about Brexit pulling ROI out of the EU (though not into a political union with the UK). He is neither British, nor a Brexiteer. No idea if it's likely, but I trust his assessment more than a party line from a politician.
This is his assessment:
The Ryanair chief was less worried about the Brexit negotiations, as he believes the EU will get exactly what it wants because “the Brits have no negotiating f*cking power.”
“This will finish in only two ways,” O’Leary said. “The British walk away, in which case they’ll be abandoned and there will be no food in the supermarket f*cking shelves. There will be riots in the streets and [Prime Minister Boris] Johnson will be out of power.”
“Or they will roll over at the end of the day … they will sell whatever deal they can f*cking do.”
If O'Leary is saying that, then you should expect the opposite.
If it does turn out that there is no food on the shelves then he is right. There will be social unrest. We nearly had it over toilet rolls. Now imagine that with fresh food.
Its never in a million years going to happen - and if there were a disruption then it would be rapidly resolved.
There was panicking buying on an unprecedented scale earlier this year and a disruption to supply chains bigger than Brexit could ever influence and the supermarkets still had fresh food available.
The odds of there being no fresh food next year are up there with the odds of Trump saying "I've rather messed up this coronavirus pandemic, I think we should all vote for Biden".
The LDs seem to lurch from one trough to another - the postponement of this year's locals was probably to their benefit (just) but they havent really gone anywhere since Dec 2019. Starmer as leader will be tricky to counter and in the SW where I watch events... things seem dire. Davey (or Moran) will need more than a rabbit out of a hat come the Autumn.....
They need the governing party to do something unpopular - the equivalent of the poll tax or invading Iraq. And governing parties usually do something unpopular at some point or another. (It may not, of course, be the LDs who benefit, but if their leader is Davey, and if the Greens continue to be invisible, and if the Brexit Party isn't around, then they will be in a good position to get the traditional NOTA vote.)
I'm not really sure who you think the traditional NOTA vote is? It was pretty clear when the LDs collapsed after going into coalition that there was a large shift in the NOTA vote from LD -> UKIP. NOTA is disproportionately people who feel relatively disengaged from mainstream politics, principally lower incomes and more Brexity than average. It was precisely this bloc that the Brexiteers went after.
The Lib Dems have spent the last few years making themselves anathema to this section of society. Unless you are imagining some new bloc of NOTA voters?
Indeed, particularly for those banking on herd immunity, whether by virus or vaccine.
My guess is he had the early D614 mutation and then was infected with the dominant European strain G614 whilst in Spain
The key is to get a vaccine developed as quickly as possible; and then start work on further vaccine work to produce antibody response with respect to other mutagens. I'd have thought any developed vaccine would provide a significant degree of cross immunity to all mutagens mind - bear in mind having the vaccine can sometimes trigger a small or non existant antibody response; whereas I believe a vaccine almost always will.
The LDs seem to lurch from one trough to another - the postponement of this year's locals was probably to their benefit (just) but they havent really gone anywhere since Dec 2019. Starmer as leader will be tricky to counter and in the SW where I watch events... things seem dire. Davey (or Moran) will need more than a rabbit out of a hat come the Autumn.....
They need the governing party to do something unpopular - the equivalent of the poll tax or invading Iraq. And governing parties usually do something unpopular at some point or another. (It may not, of course, be the LDs who benefit, but if their leader is Davey, and if the Greens continue to be invisible, and if the Brexit Party isn't around, then they will be in a good position to get the traditional NOTA vote.)
I'm not really sure who you think the traditional NOTA vote is? It was pretty clear when the LDs collapsed after going into coalition that there was a large shift in the NOTA vote from LD -> UKIP. NOTA is disproportionately people who feel relatively disengaged from mainstream politics, principally lower incomes and more Brexity than average. It was precisely this bloc that the Brexiteers went after.
The Lib Dems have spent the last few years making themselves anathema to this section of society. Unless you are imagining some new bloc of NOTA voters?
Agreed 100%
The rise of UKIP was primarily an LD -> UKIP swing, not a swing from the other parties to UKIP masked by an LD -> other parties making up for it.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
AS ever it depends on context , in Ayrshire it is increase from 0/1 to 2 so hardly a big deal. I bet most others are the same apart from the two clusters which are 90%+ of the increases. London propaganda to take heat of their own numbers.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
Another complete non-story, this isn't going to happen but the Tories have got schools off the agenda for a day
Quite right too, even if you remove a few of the minor verses to make them a bit more modern and suited to the 21st century Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory must stay, without them Last Night of the Proms would not be Last Night of the Proms
The answer seems to be: "Owning the libs and pissing off the media,” shrugs Brendan Buck, a longtime senior congressional aide and imperturbable party veteran if ever there was one. “That’s what we believe in now. There’s really not much more to it.”
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
Yes, but that's not going to help Lukashenko. He's organising support rallies of his own (although they haven't gone as he would wish). There's a non-trivial chance that to stay in power he'll need military support from Russia. So far, I see no sign of that.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
And time is on his side, not the protestors'.
I think that he is finished. This is like the collapse of eastern Europe in 1989 all over again. Only significant military intervention can stop the collapse of his regime.
Significant military intervention did stop a Peoples Revolution in China in 1989, though. I'm not claiming that Belarus is China, but we should not assume that the regime is not going to be aggressive with the police and military.
I remember that the reaction in China made the opening of the Austria/Hungary border and the East German refugees in Prage Summer/Autumn 1989 meant that the tension at the time was much higher than is often presented in films/documentaries in retrospect.
There has been little violence at the demonstrations, either from protestors or security forces. How much of that is deliberate is unclear, but there is a real possibility that orders to shoot results in the security services siding with the people. It didn't happen at Tianamen Square, but there are precedents elsewhere, not least St Petersberg 1917.
I think I actually agree with you but "built in Britain" and a bit of flag waving is an easy sell to the public
It's the same sort of nonsense Trump does. Why do you want to pay more, for worse kit, that is delivered later?
Brexit means Brexit, British jobs for British workers, etc etc
It's funny to see PB Tories calling out pointless posturing when it's Labour, yet Tories get a free pass for the last three years
I don't agree with any government that spouts such nonsense, and never have. What I don't get is why you point out the Tories doing it as well, two wrongs do not make a right as I dare say your mother taught you. Military equipment costs a bloody fortune, the last thing we want is to end up paying even more for it. You might think it it clever politics by Labour, and perhaps it is, but it would be bad government.
Having his puppet lose control of Belarus would be an absolute disaster for Putin, a much bigger issue than his modest gains in the Ukraine. I can see military intervention either officially or the usual "paramilitaries".
Lukashenko is not Putin's puppet. In fact, he spent much of the campaign slagging off Russia, even to the extent of arresting 33 Russians on a 'deniable op' who were transiting through Minsk. With hindsight, this was not a smart move.
Do not confuse him with Yanukovych in the Ukraine. In fact, there's every reason to think the opposition have warmer relations with Russia than Lukashenko does. It's not out of the question that if Putin intervenes, it will be to topple him.
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
Yes, but that's not going to help Lukashenko. He's organising support rallies of his own (although they haven't gone as he would wish). There's a non-trivial chance that to stay in power he'll need military support from Russia. So far, I see no sign of that.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
And time is on his side, not the protestors'.
I think that he is finished. This is like the collapse of eastern Europe in 1989 all over again. Only significant military intervention can stop the collapse of his regime.
Significant military intervention did stop a Peoples Revolution in China in 1989, though. I'm not claiming that Belarus is China, but we should not assume that the regime is not going to be aggressive with the police and military.
I remember that the reaction in China made the opening of the Austria/Hungary border and the East German refugees in Prage Summer/Autumn 1989 meant that the tension at the time was much higher than is often presented in films/documentaries in retrospect.
There has been little violence at the demonstrations, either from protestors or security forces. How much of that is deliberate is unclear, but there is a real possibility that orders to shoot results in the security services siding with the people. It didn't happen at Tianamen Square, but there are precedents elsewhere, not least St Petersberg 1917.
"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
I do find it remarkable how badly HYUFD reads things he doesn't understand.
If he thinks Scotland is a problem for Boris at the moment wait until next May - I suspect once Brexit hits leaving the UK to return to the EU will be a viewpoint 60% of the Scottish electorate will be happily vote for...
I think I actually agree with you but "built in Britain" and a bit of flag waving is an easy sell to the public
It's the same sort of nonsense Trump does. Why do you want to pay more, for worse kit, that is delivered later?
Brexit means Brexit, British jobs for British workers, etc etc
It's funny to see PB Tories calling out pointless posturing when it's Labour, yet Tories get a free pass for the last three years
I don't agree with any government that spouts such nonsense, and never have. What I don't get is why you point out the Tories doing it as well, two wrongs do not make a right as I dare say your mother taught you. Military equipment costs a bloody fortune, the last thing we want is to end up paying even more for it. You might think it it clever politics by Labour, and perhaps it is, but it would be bad government.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
Are you sure. The graph only goes to 2019, but I don't see why first home ownership would suddenly reverse in 2020.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
I do find it remarkable how badly HYUFD reads things he doesn't understand.
If he thinks Scotland is a problem for Boris at the moment wait until next May - I suspect once Brexit hits leaving the UK to return to the EU will be a viewpoint 60% of the Scottish electorate will be happily vote for...
62% of Scots voted to Remain in the EU, given we left the EU in January if Brexit was decisive on the Union then Yes should be over 60% already including Don't Knows.
It isn't as over a third of SNP voters voted Leave and more LD Unionist voters voted Remain than SNP voters
I think I actually agree with you but "built in Britain" and a bit of flag waving is an easy sell to the public
It's the same sort of nonsense Trump does. Why do you want to pay more, for worse kit, that is delivered later?
Brexit means Brexit, British jobs for British workers, etc etc
It's funny to see PB Tories calling out pointless posturing when it's Labour, yet Tories get a free pass for the last three years
I don't agree with any government that spouts such nonsense, and never have. What I don't get is why you point out the Tories doing it as well, two wrongs do not make a right as I dare say your mother taught you. Military equipment costs a bloody fortune, the last thing we want is to end up paying even more for it. You might think it it clever politics by Labour, and perhaps it is, but it would be bad government.
And yet, I've not seen the Tory party pursue this kind of trade policy. People keep saying that they do it too, but don't point to any specific policies or laws that have been introduced for it.
Surprised there haven't been more comments on the French intention to impose a reciprocal quarantine on us, in the face of very different rates of infection.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
Indeed, the poor are always Labour's core vote.
Even in 2019 though the Tories did better with them Labour still won those living in social housing and renting and did better with social group DE relative to any other
AS ever it depends on context , in Ayrshire it is increase from 0/1 to 2 so hardly a big deal. I bet most others are the same apart from the two clusters which are 90%+ of the increases. London propaganda to take heat of their own numbers.
I completely agree Malcolm that percentages are meaningless when we are dealing with such small numbers. Still pretty funny that Aberdeenshire has the biggest percentage decrease in Scotland though.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
more comedy gold from young Thompson.
the real difference is the right believe that the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor, and the left don't.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
more comedy gold from young Thompson.
the real difference is the right believe that the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor, and the left don't.
Berlusconi famously said 'the left love the poor so much everytime they get in power they create more of them!'
Though obviously that depends on your point of view
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
Just to add BBC4 replayed the astonishing 2007 debut Of the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra last night: a concert that absolutely epitomised the spirit of the proms. Catch it on the i-player while you can.
Comments
Either Labour is in favour of playing by international trade rules or it isn't and wants to wave flags. I'd suggest that the latter will lose more votes than it gains.
Not good
Britain succeeds and always has on the global stage. Defence is one of our export strengths, so why would we look to cut that off?
“What do Republicans believe? What does it mean to be a Republican?”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/24/republicanmeltdown-trump-convention-400039
...When I pressed, Luntz sounded as exasperated as the student whose question I was relaying. “Look, I’m the one guy who’s going to give you a straight answer. I don’t give a shit—I had a stroke in January, so there’s nothing anyone can do to me to make my life suck,” he said. “I’ve tried to give you an answer and I can’t do it. You can ask it any different way. But I don’t know the answer. For the first time in my life, I don’t know the answer.”...
Consequence of Northern Ireland being legally within UK’s customs territory as per NI protocol.
Northern Ireland is legally within UK's customs territory. Anything else is bullshit.
Whether they think such an understanding is achievable and bankable is probably the key question. We've already reached the point that nobody will be much fussed if Russia moved in, but if they can't find reliable allies then they'll probably reckon it's not worth the hassle.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/brexit-unionists-react-with-dismay-as-irish-sea-border-now-a-certainty-1.4253770
One of those oh so spontaneous rallies in Moscow giving him support.
ShockedPikachu.jpg methinks
It is domestic law, not international law, that applies there. International law applies to asylum seekers coming "directly" from a country where they are persecuted.
At the moment, however, he has achieved stalemate. He hasn't left office and the army hasn't turned on him, even if they seem to be reluctant to actively support him.
And time is on his side, not the protestors'.
If they had, I would oppose it.
If you think "flag = good" or "flag = bad" then you are delusional. Simply sticking a flag on a policy doesn't make it good or bad.
(There's a serious problem for both parties here. BoJo is, at heart, a populist. So, in a different, creepier way, are Govey and Dom. That's an easy way to win elections, but rarely a good way to navigate how to run your government once you have won elections.
The problem for the Conservatives is whether and how they have the chops to do unpopular things... things that their supporters won't like. Test case 1 is likely to be their changes to the planning system.
The problem for Labour is how to win without going down the populist rabbit hole. It's not easy if you are up against a shameless populist and things haven't fallen to pieces yet. Buy British is a good slogan, but less good government.)
But for artistic purposes the cross of St David (Yellow cross on a black background) could be incorporated relatively easily.
But dont bother. We will take our Ddraig Goch - England can keep their Syrian cross...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rada_of_the_Belarusian_Democratic_Republic
This effectively means everyone should be vaccinated.
His bigger problem though is even if he stays in power it's very hard to see what he does next. He's going to be under heavy sanctions, his regime is bankrupt and his people despise him.
So the Russians would become vital to him as a source of aid and economic support in that scenario and that's presumably why he's rambling about NATO and love-bombing Putin.
there are many theoretical reasons for the unification of Ireland (of which RoI rejoining the U.K. is a specific sub case). But it’s rather unlikely to happen near term.
Patriotism exists in all parties - people of all political stripes and none love this country and want the best for it and its people.
We may disagree on the means but not the ends.
For all the talk of Brexit over the last 5 years, this divide is curiously unaddressed.
Unfortunately, that means Labour have work to do on this.
Just as they do on anti-semitism, Brexit, private ownership, tax, education...
What we could look at is UK expenditure on EU products and services as a percentage of our overall financial losses. And EU's expenditure on British goods and services as a percentage of its overall financial losses. We'd see massive potential for import substitution in both real and percentage terms for the UK. Far less for the EU.
I remember that the reaction in China made the opening of the Austria/Hungary border and the East German refugees in Prage Summer/Autumn 1989 meant that the tension at the time was much higher than is often presented in films/documentaries in retrospect.
The Ryanair chief was less worried about the Brexit negotiations, as he believes the EU will get exactly what it wants because “the Brits have no negotiating f*cking power.”
“This will finish in only two ways,” O’Leary said. “The British walk away, in which case they’ll be abandoned and there will be no food in the supermarket f*cking shelves. There will be riots in the streets and [Prime Minister Boris] Johnson will be out of power.”
“Or they will roll over at the end of the day … they will sell whatever deal they can f*cking do.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/ryanair-boss-curses-eus-geopolitical-ambitions/
If O'Leary is saying that, then you should expect the opposite.
There was panicking buying on an unprecedented scale earlier this year and a disruption to supply chains bigger than Brexit could ever influence and the supermarkets still had fresh food available.
The odds of there being no fresh food next year are up there with the odds of Trump saying "I've rather messed up this coronavirus pandemic, I think we should all vote for Biden".
The Lib Dems have spent the last few years making themselves anathema to this section of society. Unless you are imagining some new bloc of NOTA voters?
The key is to get a vaccine developed as quickly as possible; and then start work on further vaccine work to produce antibody response with respect to other mutagens. I'd have thought any developed vaccine would provide a significant degree of cross immunity to all mutagens mind - bear in mind having the vaccine can sometimes trigger a small or non existant antibody response; whereas I believe a vaccine almost always will.
The rise of UKIP was primarily an LD -> UKIP swing, not a swing from the other parties to UKIP masked by an LD -> other parties making up for it.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
Pidcock may be back.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
Another complete non-story, this isn't going to happen but the Tories have got schools off the agenda for a day
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/24/republicanmeltdown-trump-convention-400039
The answer seems to be:
"Owning the libs and pissing off the media,” shrugs Brendan Buck, a longtime senior congressional aide and imperturbable party veteran if ever there was one. “That’s what we believe in now. There’s really not much more to it.”
Sounds familiar, similar to some Brexiteers.
Jeff Flake is an utter coward.
Petrograd. Not St Petersburg.
Hence the fine old Soviet joke:
Where were you born? St Petersburg.
Where did you grow up? Petrograd.
Where do you live now? Leningrad.
Where would you like to live? St Petersburg.
If he thinks Scotland is a problem for Boris at the moment wait until next May - I suspect once Brexit hits leaving the UK to return to the EU will be a viewpoint 60% of the Scottish electorate will be happily vote for...
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
It isn't as over a third of SNP voters voted Leave and more LD Unionist voters voted Remain than SNP voters
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1297853735549440002?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1297853739240509440?s=20
Has TSE lost his mojo ?
Even in 2019 though the Tories did better with them Labour still won those living in social housing and renting and did better with social group DE relative to any other
the real difference is the right believe that the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor, and the left don't.
Unless they go full on with Linton Kwesi Johnson "Inglan is a Bitch" in which case, I would have my popcorn ready!
https://youtu.be/Zq9OpJYck7Y
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53890220
Though obviously that depends on your point of view