Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
Fakest of fake news. It was the student newspaper revealing Young's attendence of the secret eugenics conference that cause him to reconsider his position.
Journalist attends conference. What a shocker.
Yet somehow have his attendence of the secret eugenics conference that absolute massive crank racists like Emil Kirkengaard attend was enough to make him resign.
Another doing the 'hoovering in the nude' accident. Thing is, i can actually imagine Tobes turning up at A&E trapped in a Dyson.
No sympathy for them at all BigG. I do worry for tourism industry staff who seem to have largely been forgotten.
If everyone holidays in their own country that should soften the blow a little bit. The tourism industry is just going to have to write this year off, unfortunately.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile Gordon Brown Theresa May James Callahan Edward Heath Harold Wilson Tony Blair John Major Margaret Thatcher
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile Gordon Brown Theresa May James Callahan Edward Heath Harold Wilson Tony Blair John Major Margaret Thatcher
David Cameron - the Prime Minister we most forgot we had.
No sympathy for them at all BigG. I do worry for tourism industry staff who seem to have largely been forgotten.
If everyone holidays in their own country that should soften the blow a little bit. The tourism industry is just going to have to write this year off, unfortunately.
I agree that it was an error by Johnson to encourage foreign travel, and he should have focused on 'staycations'. If one works for Hays Travel or Tui, my statement doesn't help pay the mortgage.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile Gordon Brown Theresa May James Callahan Edward Heath Harold Wilson Tony Blair John Major Margaret Thatcher
I'd have Sunny Jim and John Major close to Johnson than they are. Harold would be my top dog!
Anyway an excellent day's campaigning for Mr Johnson in Solihull with a hi-viz and a shovel. Are you sure you haven't got your list the wrong way around?
The PM seems to spend most of his time on holiday or campaigning. What, exactly is he campaigning for? Top tip. When in government, running a competent administration is the best campaign you can do.
This sort of thing is an indication of how in some ways we've become less tolerant as a nation over the last 20 to 30 years in my opinion. If the same thing had happened back then, most people would have been more sympathetic towards these people.
Given somne of them are undoubtedly bringing back the virus, in the light of recent t&t reports? I'm surprised they aren't more unpopular, as unpopular as someone going ashore from a sailing ship moored in quarantine with the Yellow Jack hoisted was in the 18th century.
The mocking photographs taken at his funeral were a nice touch.
That case is absolutely horrific.
It is; that the perpetrators haven't faced the consequences still more so.
What is unclear (to me at least) is the extent to which extreme police violence has increased under Trump, if indeed it has. No doubt it has been going on for many years, but we are seeing many more detailed reports like this than was the case say five years ago. Is that because there are many more such incidents happening, or is it simply that with mobile phone footage, body cameras, and perhaps more media focus, we are now finding out the true extent of a horrific problem which has existed for years? No doubt the latter is part of the explanation, but I don't know if it's the whole explanation.
A quick look at this graph in comparison to the election dates should give you a clue:
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
So that is the real plan.
Scottish independence, join EU. Northern Ireland gets fed up with its half in/half out status and there is Irish unification. England and Wales decideds to rejoin EU as it is now surrounded. Overall the old UK has now more influence in the EU as two countries and a significant presence in a third. This assumes that Scotland does not hate E&W's guts and votes against E&W rejoining.
Ha! So E&W could rejoin the EU out of sheer loneliness?
I'd have Sunny Jim and John Major close to Johnson than they are. Harold would be my top dog!
The trouble with Harold Wilson is that, whilst he was a slick operator and his governments did some undoubtedly good things (largely thanks to Roy Jenkins), on the central challenge of the day he was an absolute failure. His premiership could have been the one which neutered the trade unions monster before it got completely out of control. Instead, despite being given a reasonable blueprint ('In Place of Strife') by Barbara Castle (hardly a raging Tory in anyone's book), he bottled it. That led to a decade and a half of avoidable strife and economic chaos, and that in turn meant that the medicine when the country finally came to its senses under Margaret Thatcher was more unpalatable than it would been if administered earlier.
Still, if you like Harold Wilson you should like Boris and Cummings. They seem to be obsessed with revising his failed economic policies of direct state investment in industry, and a naive faith in the 'white heat of technology'.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Hmm. Seems a stretch.
Although I do have a nagging fear that there are people - apolitical shallow types - who are addicted to the Trump show and might vote on that basis. You wouldn't admit to that.
OTOH if you're voting for him because you're a bigot I doubt you would feel shy about that. Trump has made that acceptable in "his" states. Desirable even.
Your need to condemn people for voting for Trump makes it pretty hard for you to understand them.
The basic point that Kinabalu is making seems fair, though. Is it really as or more embarrassing to be a Trump supporter in 2020 than 2016?
It seems to me lines have been drawn in the culture war and sides have been picked. Trump and allies have spent four years making views mainstream that previously weren't. If you're with Trump, you now have an army of congressmen and media pundits, many of whom were themselves embarrassed by the man in 2016 who have now gone all in.
Now okay, if you're a white female graduate or a black male factory worker voting Trump, it might be something you keep quiet about to your pals. But equally you won't find a lot of declared "red-necks for Biden" or people saying "the hubby's MAGA, but I'm for Joe!" There's always social pressure. Should we weight for Trump as much as in 2016? Not sure we should.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile Gordon Brown Theresa May James Callahan Edward Heath Harold Wilson Tony Blair John Major Margaret Thatcher
I'd have Sunny Jim and John Major close to Johnson than they are. Harold would be my top dog!
Anyway an excellent day's campaigning for Mr Johnson in Solihull with a hi-viz and a shovel. Are you sure you haven't got your list the wrong way around?
The PM seems to spend most of his time on holiday or campaigning. What, exactly is he campaigning for? Top tip. When in government, running a competent administration is the best campaign you can do.
I do like to point out on here when Johnson has been out campaigning rather than working.
I remember @HYUFD being mocked on here for suggesting some Tory MPs might vote against it.
As he should be.
He was mocked for suggesting that some Tory MPs might vote down the budget and not lose the whip . . . and for saying that voting down the budget is not a "Confidence and Supply" issue.
He never did get around to explaining what he thought "and Supply" meant.
Over a 100 Tory MPs will vote down a budget containing VAT, NI or income tax rises in breach of the 2019 Tory manifesto so if they all lost the whip the government would lose its majority. Which is why Sunak will not do that even if he increased corporation tax and equates CGT with income tax.
Supply is not the same as confidence, you can amend the budget, you cannot overturn a no confidence vote once lost
Many would have booked non refundable holidays pre covid, and faced with a difficult decision. My folks are booked for 2 weeks in the Med next week in a quiet hotel they know. Both flights and hotel are not refundable, and they have not left the town for 6 months, with no immediate prospect of that changing. There is no covid in the area so they are going. I dont blame them.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Admitting to being a Trump supporter in a lot of suburban areas is probably like admitting to being a Tory supporter in the 1990s. Something you try to avoid.
I think that's actually the opposite of the Trafalgar logic.
They say you project onto your neighbours - i.e. that someone saying "I'm for Biden but most people around here are Trump supporters" is more likely to be a shy Trump supporter than someone who says "I'm Biden, as are my neighbours".
The situation I think you're describing is one where the person thinks their neighbours are all Labour so says Labour to the pollster to fit in, but really voted for Major. So you'd be suggesting the person who says "I'm Biden, as are my neighbours" is actually the more likely shy Trumper.
It's all too convoluted. Ok, so something like "Are you a racist?" - such a poll will massively understate the true number of racists in a community.
But here we're just talking about voting for Donald Trump. Is voting for Donald Trump really seen to be on a par with admitting you're a racist?
Surely not. He's the Republican candidate after all in a 2 party very partisan country. So you can just say, "Don't like him but I'm voting Republican so that's him".
And say it with a little "what can you do?" shrug if you must.
I don't believe in shy Trumpers. If anything I think it will be the other way. This will be a silent majority election and the silent majority - many of whom will not express this outside the ballot box - have had enough of him. So Biden will outperform the closing polls.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Clearly not extreme enough, because you continue to state your subjective argument (which yes, you're completely entitled to) as objective fact, which it isn't. Indeed, it ignores one or more objective facts to make it.
As I've said repeatedly, there are not 'no' economic arguments in favour of Brexit. You may think them worth very little, but objectively you cannot say there are 'no' arguments. I wouldn't dream of saying there are 'no' economic arguments for independence - it would be ridiculous.
David David is a proper tory. Everybody who is a genuine conservative knows that. And so do you.
That's not really the issue at all. If someone goes against the leadership of their party often enough or in serious enough fashion they might be at risk no matter how much of proper X they are.
Given the ideological underpinnings of our parties are much less strong than they pretend they are, and therefore they change in fundamental ways, its frankly surprising more people do not get expelled even with broad coalitions.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Independence after the UK leaves the EEA means tariffs on all Scottish goods to England where 70% of Scottish exports go, less than 50% of UK goods go to the EU by contast.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
This sort of thing is an indication of how in some ways we've become less tolerant as a nation over the last 20 to 30 years in my opinion. If the same thing had happened back then, most people would have been more sympathetic towards these people.
Given somne of them are undoubtedly bringing back the virus, in the light of recent t&t reports? I'm surprised they aren't more unpopular, as unpopular as someone going ashore from a sailing ship moored in quarantine with the Yellow Jack hoisted was in the 18th century.
Exactly. They don't have to pay for early flights back. They could stay for the rest of their holiday and then sit out the quarantine period. It's absurd that there's even the opportunity for people to rush back ahead of quarantine restrictions.
Why would you expect people to be sympathetic to other people being allowed to dodge rules by spending extra money?
I had sympathy for people who were stuck in Spanish hotels when this was just starting, but people know the risk they are taking now. They have to take responsibility for it.
This sort of thing is an indication of how in some ways we've become less tolerant as a nation over the last 20 to 30 years in my opinion. If the same thing had happened back then, most people would have been more sympathetic towards these people.
They know the risks. Many have tried to "game" their destinations. When they finally come unstuck in Portugal or Croatia they dolefully bemoan that this destination was the fourth or fifth booking change they have had to make in a fortnight. Natural selection at its finest.
I'd have Sunny Jim and John Major close to Johnson than they are. Harold would be my top dog!
The trouble with Harold Wilson is that, whilst he was a slick operator and his governments did some undoubtedly good things (largely thanks to Roy Jenkins), on the central challenge of the day he was an absolute failure. His premiership could have been the one which neutered the trade unions monster before it got completely out of control. Instead, despite being given a reasonable blueprint ('In Place of Strife') by Barbara Castle (hardly a raging Tory in anyone's book), he bottled it. That led to a decade and a half of avoidable strife and economic chaos, and that in turn meant that the medicine when the country finally came to its senses under Margaret Thatcher was more unpalatable than it would been if administered earlier.
Still, if you like Harold Wilson you should like Boris and Cummings. They seem to be obsessed with revising his failed economic policies of direct state investment in industry, and a naive faith in the 'white heat of technology'.
To be fair to Harold Wilson - and Barbara Castle - re - In Place of Strife in mid-1969, it was the failure of moderate Labour Ministers - in particular Callaghan but also extending to Roy Jenkins - to support him that led to the backdown on the proposed legislation.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Clearly not extreme enough, because you continue to state your subjective argument (which yes, you're completely entitled to) as objective fact, which it isn't. Indeed, it ignores one or more objective facts to make it.
As I've said repeatedly, there are not 'no' economic arguments in favour of Brexit. You may think them worth very little, but objectively you cannot say there are 'no' arguments. I wouldn't dream of saying there are 'no' economic arguments for independence - it would be ridiculous.
Would you agree that Scottish independence is more tangible than Brexit? Brexit means leaving a set of treaties and attempting to replace them with a new set of treaties with the aim of preserving as many of the things you like as possible, while removing the things you don't like. On the other hand independence actually creates a new sovereign entity.
Many would have booked non refundable holidays pre covid, and faced with a difficult decision. My folks are booked for 2 weeks in the Med next week in a quiet hotel they know. Both flights and hotel are not refundable, and they have not left the town for 6 months, with no immediate prospect of that changing. There is no covid in the area so they are going. I dont blame them.
Which is why the ever-changing travel restrictions are a problem. If the government had continued to advise against all overseas travel, it would have been a problem for insurance companies and credit card companies to deal with. We can thank a huge lobbying campaign by the travel industry, cheered on by a print media who rely on the travel industry for a large proportion of their advertising revenue. “Holiday at home and help the economy” should have been the slogan.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Admitting to being a Trump supporter in a lot of suburban areas is probably like admitting to being a Tory supporter in the 1990s. Something you try to avoid.
I think that's actually the opposite of the Trafalgar logic.
They say you project onto your neighbours - i.e. that someone saying "I'm for Biden but most people around here are Trump supporters" is more likely to be a shy Trump supporter than someone who says "I'm Biden, as are my neighbours".
The situation I think you're describing is one where the person thinks their neighbours are all Labour so says Labour to the pollster to fit in, but really voted for Major. So you'd be suggesting the person who says "I'm Biden, as are my neighbours" is actually the more likely shy Trumper.
It's all too convoluted. Ok, so something like "Are you a racist?" - such a poll will massively understate the true number of racists in a community.
But here we're just talking about voting for Donald Trump. Is voting for Donald Trump really seen to be on a par with admitting you're a racist?
Surely not. He's the Republican candidate after all in a 2 party very partisan country. So you can just say, "Don't like him but I'm voting Republican so that's him".
And say it with a little "what can you do?" shrug if you must.
I don't believe in shy Trumpers. If anything I think it will be the other way. This will be a silent majority election and the silent majority - many of whom will not express this outside the ballot box - have had enough of him. So Biden will outperform the closing polls.
You can't even mention voting for Trump without using words like 'bigoted'. We can't even speak about Trump here without prefacing it with 'I hate Trump as much as any other right-thinking person' or similar. Or we get called Trumptons. I personally don't care, as I've always done a good line in being PB's black sheep. But that speaks to the lack of social acceptability of Trump.
This sort of thing is an indication of how in some ways we've become less tolerant as a nation over the last 20 to 30 years in my opinion. If the same thing had happened back then, most people would have been more sympathetic towards these people.
On what do you base that? I can believe we are more intolerant in many ways, but I don't know why that means people would be more sympathetic of people going abroad in a pandemic.
As fewer people went on overseas holidays maybe theyd be less sympathetic?
Many would have booked non refundable holidays pre covid, and faced with a difficult decision. My folks are booked for 2 weeks in the Med next week in a quiet hotel they know. Both flights and hotel are not refundable, and they have not left the town for 6 months, with no immediate prospect of that changing. There is no covid in the area so they are going. I dont blame them.
It's one of those slightly ambiguous questions.
If your nextdoor neighbours had saved to take their kids on holiday after a tough year, and then the kids couldn't go to school and they couldn't work for a fortnight, then on a personal level of course you're sympathetic.
If they whined about it and demanded compensation or a change to the decision (as TV talking heads have), that sympathy runs out pretty quickly, as it was a risk they ran.
The mocking photographs taken at his funeral were a nice touch.
And they wonder why people riot and want to de fund the police.
It does seem as if Colorado makes use of forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects on a fairly regular basis
They what?!
It's difficult to think of a way to present the statement 'forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects' that would make it in any way acceptable.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Independence after the UK leaves the EEA means tariffs on all Scottish goods to England where 70% of Scottish exports go, less than 50% of UK goods go to the EU by contast.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
Instead of the EU negotiating trade deals for us we will have Tony Abbott.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Indeed, on paper Iceland should have been crushed into submission.
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.
I used to have a colleague who was in command of the British fleet in the Cod War. He was so disillusioned with the experience he went off and became a sociologist.
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Oh I see. That malarkey. Too clever by half some of these polling firms.
Makes sense I think. 'I wouldn't dream of voting Trump, but I have to report a groundswell of opinion in his favour in my neck of the woods' = Trump.
But the poll is meant to pick up that groundswell of support not intuit it.
I didn't make my meaning clear. What I'm trying to say, is that anyone who would say that, is probably a shy Trumper. That question gives them a valve to vent their Trumpiness in a socially acceptable way. Of course, they could be wrong to do so but I suspect it's quite accurate.
Hmm. Seems a stretch.
Although I do have a nagging fear that there are people - apolitical shallow types - who are addicted to the Trump show and might vote on that basis. You wouldn't admit to that.
OTOH if you're voting for him because you're a bigot I doubt you would feel shy about that. Trump has made that acceptable in "his" states. Desirable even.
Your need to condemn people for voting for Trump makes it pretty hard for you to understand them.
The basic point that Kinabalu is making seems fair, though. Is it really as or more embarrassing to be a Trump supporter in 2020 than 2016?
It seems to me lines have been drawn in the culture war and sides have been picked. Trump and allies have spent four years making views mainstream that previously weren't. If you're with Trump, you now have an army of congressmen and media pundits, many of whom were themselves embarrassed by the man in 2016 who have now gone all in.
Now okay, if you're a white female graduate or a black male factory worker voting Trump, it might be something you keep quiet about to your pals. But equally you won't find a lot of declared "red-necks for Biden" or people saying "the hubby's MAGA, but I'm for Joe!" There's always social pressure. Should we weight for Trump as much as in 2016? Not sure we should.
People are always saying, about shy-kippers, shy-Tories, shy-brexiteers, shy-Trumpers, shy-Corbynites, shy sindy-supporters - 'Well, they look anything but shy to me!! tee hee!!' - that's because the ones you see are by definition the non shy ones.
The mocking photographs taken at his funeral were a nice touch.
And they wonder why people riot and want to de fund the police.
It does seem as if Colorado makes use of forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects on a fairly regular basis
They what?!
It's difficult to think of a way to present the statement 'forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects' that would make it in any way acceptable.
'Slipped them a little something to make them compliant'?
I used to have a colleague who was in command of the British fleet in the Cod War. He was so disillusioned with the experience he went off and became a sociologist.
The mocking photographs taken at his funeral were a nice touch.
And they wonder why people riot and want to de fund the police.
It does seem as if Colorado makes use of forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects on a fairly regular basis
They what?!
Astonishing isn’t it? US police forces are out of control.
Even knowing some things they do I thought was beyond being shocked. Despite being a great place in many ways sometimes it seems that aspects of the USA exist to make the same aspects here look good.
I'd have Sunny Jim and John Major close to Johnson than they are. Harold would be my top dog!
The trouble with Harold Wilson is that, whilst he was a slick operator and his governments did some undoubtedly good things (largely thanks to Roy Jenkins), on the central challenge of the day he was an absolute failure. His premiership could have been the one which neutered the trade unions monster before it got completely out of control. Instead, despite being given a reasonable blueprint ('In Place of Strife') by Barbara Castle (hardly a raging Tory in anyone's book), he bottled it. That led to a decade and a half of avoidable strife and economic chaos, and that in turn meant that the medicine when the country finally came to its senses under Margaret Thatcher was more unpalatable than it would been if administered earlier.
Still, if you like Harold Wilson you should like Boris and Cummings. They seem to be obsessed with revising his failed economic policies of direct state investment in industry, and a naive faith in the 'white heat of technology'.
Wilson was not without his faults, however Harold was a canny old boy with a high opinion of himself but knew his limitations.
Johnson and Cummings both have high opinions of their abilities but have no idea that reality falls woefully short of their self- assured genius.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Clearly not extreme enough, because you continue to state your subjective argument (which yes, you're completely entitled to) as objective fact, which it isn't. Indeed, it ignores one or more objective facts to make it.
As I've said repeatedly, there are not 'no' economic arguments in favour of Brexit. You may think them worth very little, but objectively you cannot say there are 'no' arguments. I wouldn't dream of saying there are 'no' economic arguments for independence - it would be ridiculous.
Would you agree that Scottish independence is more tangible than Brexit? Brexit means leaving a set of treaties and attempting to replace them with a new set of treaties with the aim of preserving as many of the things you like as possible, while removing the things you don't like. On the other hand independence actually creates a new sovereign entity.
I certainly think it's more emotive. But I've always found it to be deceptively so, in the sense that independence from WM whilst maintaining EU membership represents very little progress in gaining 'real' independence in my opinion.
If I really believed in Scottish independence, I'd probably give Brexit some time, then leave the UK but not back in to the EU. I actually think it's a boon to independence to have someone leave the EU on behalf of Scotland - it's like getting half way there and not even having to take responsibility for it. And there's a minority within the indy movement that agrees. Most obviously don't.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Independence after the UK leaves the EEA means tariffs on all Scottish goods to England where 70% of Scottish exports go, less than 50% of UK goods go to the EU by contast.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
Agreed. Brexit does have some (smallish) sovereignty gains. But achieving statehood, being a member of the United Nations, having an army, issuing your own stamps etc. is a step change that is an order of magnitude greater.
People are always saying, about shy-kippers, shy-Tories, shy-brexiteers, shy-Trumpers, shy-Corbynites, shy sindy-supporters - 'Well, they look anything but shy to me!! tee hee!!' - that's because the ones you see are by definition the non shy ones.
That's true, and I accept that there are always some people who won't admit voting a particular way as it's deemed socially unacceptable in their community (and some others who will revel in being contrarian).
So there will be shy Trump supporters and shy Biden ones, as well as proud Trump supporters and proud Biden ones.
My issue is whether we should assume there is as much logic in weighting for shy Trump in 2020 as in 2016.
I'd suggest not - it's a little different for us being insulated from it in the UK, but a lot of the last four years in the USA have been about normalising views and a style of doing business which were more shocking in 2016. Each Trump outburst is less shocking than the last and, although he's upped the ante to a degree to maintain impact, there is surely an extent to which people are desensitised.
Apparently in responding back to Matt Zarb-Counsin I'm trying to provoke a pile on from Corbynites on Twitter. So far I've had "fuck off you speccy cunt". They're so erudite!
I'd have Sunny Jim and John Major close to Johnson than they are. Harold would be my top dog!
The trouble with Harold Wilson is that, whilst he was a slick operator and his governments did some undoubtedly good things (largely thanks to Roy Jenkins), on the central challenge of the day he was an absolute failure. His premiership could have been the one which neutered the trade unions monster before it got completely out of control. Instead, despite being given a reasonable blueprint ('In Place of Strife') by Barbara Castle (hardly a raging Tory in anyone's book), he bottled it. That led to a decade and a half of avoidable strife and economic chaos, and that in turn meant that the medicine when the country finally came to its senses under Margaret Thatcher was more unpalatable than it would been if administered earlier.
Still, if you like Harold Wilson you should like Boris and Cummings. They seem to be obsessed with revising his failed economic policies of direct state investment in industry, and a naive faith in the 'white heat of technology'.
Wilson was not without his faults, however Harold was a canny old boy with a high opinion of himself but knew his limitations.
Johnson and Cummings both have high opinions of their abilities but have no idea that reality falls woefully short of their self- assured genius.
Yes, well, the reality of Wilson's 'National Plan' fell woefully short as well. As Wikipedia puts it:
Wilson believed that scientific progress was the key to economic and social advancement, as such he famously referred to the "white heat of technology", in reference to the modernisation of British industry. This was to be achieved through a new Ministry of Technology (shortened to 'Mintech') which would coordinate research and development and support the swift adoption of new technology by industry, aided by government-funded infrastructure improvements
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
Fakest of fake news. It was the student newspaper revealing Young's attendence of the secret eugenics conference that cause him to reconsider his position.
Journalist attends conference. What a shocker.
Yet somehow have his attendence of the secret eugenics conference that absolute massive crank racists like Emil Kirkengaard attend was enough to make him resign.
Another doing the 'hoovering in the nude' accident. Thing is, i can actually imagine Tobes turning up at A&E trapped in a Dyson.
Ouch. That would test even the staunchest free born Englishman's stiff upper lip. Think there'd be some free screech.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Apparently in responding back to Matt Zarb-Counsin I'm trying to provoke a pile on from Corbynites on Twitter. So far I've had "fuck off you speccy cunt". They're so erudite!
I find twitter great for a laugh. Granted it's more left than right so the humour to be found is slanted, but you cannot tell me it is not funny.
I like this line of thinkign in response to Matt - apparently some people haven't noticed that the 'they' that won't allow Corbyn to be PM is the public.
Apparently in responding back to Matt Zarb-Counsin I'm trying to provoke a pile on from Corbynites on Twitter. So far I've had "fuck off you speccy cunt". They're so erudite!
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Independence after the UK leaves the EEA means tariffs on all Scottish goods to England where 70% of Scottish exports go, less than 50% of UK goods go to the EU by contast.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
Agreed. Brexit does have some (smallish) sovereignty gains. But achieving statehood, being a member of the United Nations, having an army, issuing your own stamps etc. is a step change that is an order of magnitude greater.
If the EU becomes a Federal superstate there will be an EU army, not a Scottish army, EU membership of the UN Security Council, maybe even replacing Scottish membership of the General Assembly, Scotland will swap the £ for the Euro and may even have EU stamps with Von Der Leyen's head on.
Post Brexit UK will still be an independent member of the UN Security Council, still have its own army and still have the £ and stamps with the Queen's head on
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Brexit doesn't have all downsides.
No political decision in the world has all down sides.
It's just you aren't able to see them because your world view is too EU centric.
People are always saying, about shy-kippers, shy-Tories, shy-brexiteers, shy-Trumpers, shy-Corbynites, shy sindy-supporters - 'Well, they look anything but shy to me!! tee hee!!' - that's because the ones you see are by definition the non shy ones.
That's true, and I accept that there are always some people who won't admit voting a particular way as it's deemed socially unacceptable in their community (and some others who will revel in being contrarian).
So there will be shy Trump supporters and shy Biden ones, as well as proud Trump supporters and proud Biden ones.
My issue is whether we should assume there is as much logic in weighting for shy Trump in 2020 as in 2016.
I'd suggest not - it's a little different for us being insulated from it in the UK, but a lot of the last four years in the USA have been about normalising views and a style of doing business which were more shocking in 2016. Each Trump outburst is less shocking than the last and, although he's upped the ante to a degree to maintain impact, there is surely an extent to which people are desensitised.
Personally I can only go on the UK (which I appreciate is not a good guide to the US). Here, as Trump has been in office, his notoriety has grown. If anything, it has become less socially acceptable to be Trump-favourable, not more. Those who outwardly support Trump here, are personified by Nigel Farage - people who thrive on offering controversial opinions.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile Gordon Brown Theresa May James Callahan Edward Heath Harold Wilson Tony Blair John Major Margaret Thatcher
You are missing David Cameron, from the very top of the list.
The mocking photographs taken at his funeral were a nice touch.
And they wonder why people riot and want to de fund the police.
It does seem as if Colorado makes use of forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects on a fairly regular basis
They what?!
It's difficult to think of a way to present the statement 'forcible injection of Ketamine in subduing suspects' that would make it in any way acceptable.
'Slipped them a little something to make them compliant'?
Shit, no good.
"We provide suspects with free food, drinks, accommodation & medical grade drugs - come party at our crib" - Colorado Police
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Independence after the UK leaves the EEA means tariffs on all Scottish goods to England where 70% of Scottish exports go, less than 50% of UK goods go to the EU by contast.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
Agreed. Brexit does have some (smallish) sovereignty gains. But achieving statehood, being a member of the United Nations, having an army, issuing your own stamps etc. is a step change that is an order of magnitude greater.
If the EU becomes a Federal superstate there will be an EU army, not a Scottish army, EU membership of the UN Security Council, maybe even replacing Scottish membership of the General Assembly, Scotland will swap the £ for the Euro and may even have EU stamps with Von Der Leyen's head on.
Post Brexit UK will still be an independent member of the UN Security Council, still have its own army and still have the £ and stamps with the Queen's head on
There’s a lot of “ifs” and high fantasy in this comment.
Many would have booked non refundable holidays pre covid, and faced with a difficult decision. My folks are booked for 2 weeks in the Med next week in a quiet hotel they know. Both flights and hotel are not refundable, and they have not left the town for 6 months, with no immediate prospect of that changing. There is no covid in the area so they are going. I dont blame them.
It's one of those slightly ambiguous questions.
If your nextdoor neighbours had saved to take their kids on holiday after a tough year, and then the kids couldn't go to school and they couldn't work for a fortnight, then on a personal level of course you're sympathetic.
If they whined about it and demanded compensation or a change to the decision (as TV talking heads have), that sympathy runs out pretty quickly, as it was a risk they ran.
Yes. This is it. It's like the Diamond Princess. I had great sympathy, but it was tested with that couple who kept coming on TV and wingeing in a rather entitled and precious manner as if their problems were the biggest on all of earth. Although the chap did then die as I recall. Then I felt bad for feeling how I'd felt.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Independence after the UK leaves the EEA means tariffs on all Scottish goods to England where 70% of Scottish exports go, less than 50% of UK goods go to the EU by contast.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
Agreed. Brexit does have some (smallish) sovereignty gains. But achieving statehood, being a member of the United Nations, having an army, issuing your own stamps etc. is a step change that is an order of magnitude greater.
An independent Scotland would mean Scots lose influence via the UK in the UN Security council and in British armed forces, where they currently make a decisive difference to world affairs.
It was because of the UK that Scots had the chance to shape much of world affairs over the past 300 years.
That hasn't changed.
(PS. And even the Falkland Islands currently issue their own stamps - if that's a deal-breaker then I'm sure something can be arranged)
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Indeed, on paper Iceland should have been crushed into submission.
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.
I used to have a colleague who was in command of the British fleet in the Cod War. He was so disillusioned with the experience he went off and became a sociologist.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Indeed, on paper Iceland should have been crushed into submission.
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.
I used to have a colleague who was in command of the British fleet in the Cod War. He was so disillusioned with the experience he went off and became a sociologist.
A fate worse than death.
Indeed. Couldn't he have at least become a cod philosopher instead?
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Clearly not extreme enough, because you continue to state your subjective argument (which yes, you're completely entitled to) as objective fact, which it isn't. Indeed, it ignores one or more objective facts to make it.
As I've said repeatedly, there are not 'no' economic arguments in favour of Brexit. You may think them worth very little, but objectively you cannot say there are 'no' arguments. I wouldn't dream of saying there are 'no' economic arguments for independence - it would be ridiculous.
Would you agree that Scottish independence is more tangible than Brexit? Brexit means leaving a set of treaties and attempting to replace them with a new set of treaties with the aim of preserving as many of the things you like as possible, while removing the things you don't like. On the other hand independence actually creates a new sovereign entity.
I certainly think it's more emotive. But I've always found it to be deceptively so, in the sense that independence from WM whilst maintaining EU membership represents very little progress in gaining 'real' independence in my opinion.
Try not to think of it in emotive terms but just in terms of achieving good governance within a functional democratic system.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile
He has two great achievements to his credit - implementing the will of the people as expressed in 2016, which his two predecessors did not, and winning a clear overall majority, which his six predecessors did not. The first ended a nasty political and constitutional crisis, and the second kept Corbyn out. Not a bad record for his first year.
His leadership during the Chinese flu pandemic has been poor-to-indifferent - he did not impose a ridiculously strict lockdown like in France and Italy, but has resorted to gimmicks and focus groups rather than giving the country a clear strategy and direction. The same is likely to be true of his industrial strategy and levelling up and so on.
Overall, I'd rate him as better than average, but not as good as Mrs Thatcher, the truly outstanding peacetime leader we've produced for at least a century. But it's early days yet, of course - he could be around for another decade if he lasts as long as she did, and her great qualities did not emerge immediately.
Of our other recent Prime Ministers, the real turkeys are Ted Heath and Gordon Brown. Most of the rest were indifferent.
Im pretty sure if the South of England were a seperate country it would have the lowest infection rates in Europe
Special mention also for East Anglia, with only 229 cases confirmed by test so far over the whole of the last 14 days in Norfolk and Suffolk (or about 1 per 100,000 people per day,) according to these data.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Clearly not extreme enough, because you continue to state your subjective argument (which yes, you're completely entitled to) as objective fact, which it isn't. Indeed, it ignores one or more objective facts to make it.
As I've said repeatedly, there are not 'no' economic arguments in favour of Brexit. You may think them worth very little, but objectively you cannot say there are 'no' arguments. I wouldn't dream of saying there are 'no' economic arguments for independence - it would be ridiculous.
Would you agree that Scottish independence is more tangible than Brexit? Brexit means leaving a set of treaties and attempting to replace them with a new set of treaties with the aim of preserving as many of the things you like as possible, while removing the things you don't like. On the other hand independence actually creates a new sovereign entity.
I certainly think it's more emotive. But I've always found it to be deceptively so, in the sense that independence from WM whilst maintaining EU membership represents very little progress in gaining 'real' independence in my opinion.
Try not to think of it in emotive terms but just in terms of achieving good governance within a functional democratic system.
I would surmise that we have very different definitions of 'good governance', 'functional democratic system' and who knows, probably 'achieving' and 'within a'.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Clearly not extreme enough, because you continue to state your subjective argument (which yes, you're completely entitled to) as objective fact, which it isn't. Indeed, it ignores one or more objective facts to make it.
As I've said repeatedly, there are not 'no' economic arguments in favour of Brexit. You may think them worth very little, but objectively you cannot say there are 'no' arguments. I wouldn't dream of saying there are 'no' economic arguments for independence - it would be ridiculous.
Would you agree that Scottish independence is more tangible than Brexit? Brexit means leaving a set of treaties and attempting to replace them with a new set of treaties with the aim of preserving as many of the things you like as possible, while removing the things you don't like. On the other hand independence actually creates a new sovereign entity.
I certainly think it's more emotive. But I've always found it to be deceptively so, in the sense that independence from WM whilst maintaining EU membership represents very little progress in gaining 'real' independence in my opinion.
Try not to think of it in emotive terms but just in terms of achieving good governance within a functional democratic system.
I would surmise that we have very different definitions of 'good governance', 'functional democratic system' and who knows, probably 'achieving' and 'within a'.
I think that Hunt, Osborne and Ed Miliband are under-rated here, but Benn, Duncan-Smith and Powell are over-rated.
I wonder what the PM we wish we had never had would throw up. Mrs T has her detractors, but also many people (myself included) who thought she was, on balance, a very effective PM. Here would be my order of PMs, with the first three very much in the "wish we never had" category and the rest in descending order (obviously the further down the list one goes they become the ones I think, on balance, made good leaders):
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson - the worst by a country mile
He has two great achievements to his credit - implementing the will of the people as expressed in 2016, which his two predecessors did not, and winning a clear overall majority, which his six predecessors did not. The first ended a nasty political and constitutional crisis, and the second kept Corbyn out. Not a bad record for his first year.
His leadership during the Chinese flu pandemic has been poor-to-indifferent - he did not impose a ridiculously strict lockdown like in France and Italy, but has resorted to gimmicks and focus groups rather than giving the country a clear strategy and direction. The same is likely to be true of his industrial strategy and levelling up and so on.
Overall, I'd rate him as better than average, but not as good as Mrs Thatcher, the truly outstanding peacetime leader we've produced for at least a century. But it's early days yet, of course - he could be around for another decade if he lasts as long as she did, and her great qualities did not emerge immediately.
Of our other recent Prime Ministers, the real turkeys are Ted Heath and Gordon Brown. Most of the rest were indifferent.
Ted wasn't that bad. and Johnson is far, far worse, I take it you are a Brexiteer.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Would you say that was an example of right wing comedy? I'm not sure it is myself. It's just making fun of lachrymose virtue signalling. Right wing comedy, for me, needs to be satirizing things like public ownership and waste in government and high levels of income tax.
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Apparently in responding back to Matt Zarb-Counsin I'm trying to provoke a pile on from Corbynites on Twitter. So far I've had "fuck off you speccy cunt". They're so erudite!
🤓
Now being lectured by a young Momentum activist on how there was no difference between 2017 and 2019 manifestos and how Corbyn offered a 2nd referendum to "you people". Bless.
Looks like the Government is going with Abbott. Probably the right decision, another u-turn would have just looked like being tossed from pillar to post even more than they are currently.
Good. The government need to make appointments and stick by them.
A vocal group of left-wing activists will vociferously object to the appointment of anyone to the right of Corbyn to any government role, as was demonstrated a couple of years ago when someone who started a chain of free schools was hounded out of an education body for something he’d said on Twitter a decade previously.
That would be the charming fellow who said that he enjoyed a w**k over starving kids in africa?
That was actually a joke, which everyone with two braincells to rub together knows, and a rather funny one at that too. Frankie Boyle used to make them too. Frequently. And Stewart Lee.
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
Yes, much as I like Frankie Boyle I wouldn’t put him in charge of anything apart from a post watershed comedy show.
What is appropriate stand up is often not appropriate for someone wanting a career in politics, and rightly so.
I pointed out the other day, as someone who supports the Union long term, that the wins for Scottish independence are a lot more concrete than for Brexit, even if leaving the Union is an overall loss.
Economics: EU Single Market; Protections: ECJ; Influence: EU Membership; Sovereignty: Scotland becomes an independent state.
Brexit for its part has essentially no improvements for economics, protections or influence to offset the downsides in each of those areas. The sovereignty win (leaving an important international body) is much smaller than Scotland achieving statehood.
You pointed this out and you were roundly mocked in response because your arguments were utter rubbish. Each of your bullet points deals with a hazily defined area to which you've assigned entirely one-sided verdicts that doggedly ignore the obvious counter-argument.
There is a membership fee that we pay to the EU. When we leave we (at some point) stop paying. You can argue whether or not it is worth it, whether we get more in the long run, how much the precise figure is, etc. etc., but the fact you attempt to ignore it even exists makes a mockery of your grip of 'economics'.
You speak of the degree of 'sovereignty win', but at the same time you speak favourably of 'protections'. These are quite clearly opposing concepts. Which is better, having more 'protections' or having the sovereignty to decide what level of protections to implement?
As for 'influence', I'm not sure where to begin with your claim that leaving the UK but joining the EU would represent more influence for Scotland.
I can only conclude that you've concocted this all up because the leave vote still really really stings.
This is extreme. Simply pointing out (as someone who is in favour of the Union) that independence objectively DOES have upsides to go along with the downsides. Unlike Brexit which is essentially all downside. Therefore saying independence and Brexit are the same coin is wrong. Even less that Brexit is OK but independence isn't.
Clearly not extreme enough, because you continue to state your subjective argument (which yes, you're completely entitled to) as objective fact, which it isn't. Indeed, it ignores one or more objective facts to make it.
As I've said repeatedly, there are not 'no' economic arguments in favour of Brexit. You may think them worth very little, but objectively you cannot say there are 'no' arguments. I wouldn't dream of saying there are 'no' economic arguments for independence - it would be ridiculous.
Would you agree that Scottish independence is more tangible than Brexit? Brexit means leaving a set of treaties and attempting to replace them with a new set of treaties with the aim of preserving as many of the things you like as possible, while removing the things you don't like. On the other hand independence actually creates a new sovereign entity.
I certainly think it's more emotive. But I've always found it to be deceptively so, in the sense that independence from WM whilst maintaining EU membership represents very little progress in gaining 'real' independence in my opinion.
Try not to think of it in emotive terms but just in terms of achieving good governance within a functional democratic system.
I would surmise that we have very different definitions of 'good governance', 'functional democratic system' and who knows, probably 'achieving' and 'within a'.
What are your definitions?
We would be wandering off the point. It would probably be more pertinent for you to explain your definition of 'tangible' in this sense, including why in this context 'tangibility' is considered a merit.
I have always considered Scottish separation to be by orders of magnitude 'tougher', 'more severe', 'more challenging' than Brexit, because of thankfully we never got to the stage where we depended on shared EU institutions for any of the necessities of statehood. It is certainly more tangible in that sense.
Apparently in responding back to Matt Zarb-Counsin I'm trying to provoke a pile on from Corbynites on Twitter. So far I've had "fuck off you speccy cunt". They're so erudite!
I find twitter great for a laugh. Granted it's more left than right so the humour to be found is slanted, but you cannot tell me it is not funny.
I like this line of thinkign in response to Matt - apparently some people haven't noticed that the 'they' that won't allow Corbyn to be PM is the public.
Yup. Labour voters up and down the land went off to vote Tory. Who I am and what I think is pretty irrelevant really. But as they can't comprehend that the VOTERS are the issue they have to agitate. Does make me laugh though
Wasn't Cumming's first job (apart from his training in Russia...) killing off devolution for greater Northumbria? Its good to hear that he has changed his mind. In 10 years he could spearhead the Rejoin campaign, having changed his mind on that too.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
That is exactly what many people on here have directly stated he would be doing.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
Shame on you, trying to deny them the opportunity to board the outrage bus.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
He'll probably have the ear of the PM though. It sounds like that sort of thing to me.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
Shame on you, trying to deny them the opportunity to board the outrage bus.
Whatever the merits or demerits of Tony Abbott, you might have hoped that the media would realise that the role he's been appointed to is not a 'trade envoy' or anything like it. He'll be a member of an advisory board which meets just four times a year and has no powers. From some of the media coverage, you'd get the impression that he's personally going to be negotiating on Britain's behalf.
He'll probably have the ear of the PM though. It sounds like that sort of thing to me.
Implying that the only way he'll get his ear is by being on this board. I seriously doubt that is the case.
Regional devolution - is it really such a bad idea? You can't govern "England" on a one size fits no-one model. We have some areas with huge artificial county councils, others with small unitary authorities. An utter lack of co-ordination is the result. A North East authority has more merit than an elected Mayor for North Tyne...
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But what we've got instead is an increasing mass of weird regional, semi devolutions like the West of England mayoralty.
The whole 'devolution' approach has been unnecessarily confusing and variable.
It's total nuts, how every Government, of every hue, seems to come around to thinking it's a good idea to break England up in to regions on the EU federalism model.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
One reason is that the Scots for one wouldn't have any truck with 'federalism' which kept England intact, rather than in Scotland-sized chunks (within a factor of 2 either way).
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.
But what we've got instead is an increasing mass of weird regional, semi devolutions like the West of England mayoralty.
Comments
What, exactly is he campaigning for?
Top tip.
When in government, running a competent administration is the best campaign you can do.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=black lives matter
Still, if you like Harold Wilson you should like Boris and Cummings. They seem to be obsessed with revising his failed economic policies of direct state investment in industry, and a naive faith in the 'white heat of technology'.
It seems to me lines have been drawn in the culture war and sides have been picked. Trump and allies have spent four years making views mainstream that previously weren't. If you're with Trump, you now have an army of congressmen and media pundits, many of whom were themselves embarrassed by the man in 2016 who have now gone all in.
Now okay, if you're a white female graduate or a black male factory worker voting Trump, it might be something you keep quiet about to your pals. But equally you won't find a lot of declared "red-necks for Biden" or people saying "the hubby's MAGA, but I'm for Joe!" There's always social pressure. Should we weight for Trump as much as in 2016? Not sure we should.
Supply is not the same as confidence, you can amend the budget, you cannot overturn a no confidence vote once lost
Many would have booked non refundable holidays pre covid, and faced with a difficult decision. My folks are booked for 2 weeks in the Med next week in a quiet hotel they know. Both flights and hotel are not refundable, and they have not left the town for 6 months, with no immediate prospect of that changing. There is no covid in the area so they are going. I dont blame them.
But here we're just talking about voting for Donald Trump. Is voting for Donald Trump really seen to be on a par with admitting you're a racist?
Surely not. He's the Republican candidate after all in a 2 party very partisan country. So you can just say, "Don't like him but I'm voting Republican so that's him".
And say it with a little "what can you do?" shrug if you must.
I don't believe in shy Trumpers. If anything I think it will be the other way. This will be a silent majority election and the silent majority - many of whom will not express this outside the ballot box - have had enough of him. So Biden will outperform the closing polls.
As I've said repeatedly, there are not 'no' economic arguments in favour of Brexit. You may think them worth very little, but objectively you cannot say there are 'no' arguments. I wouldn't dream of saying there are 'no' economic arguments for independence - it would be ridiculous.
Given the ideological underpinnings of our parties are much less strong than they pretend they are, and therefore they change in fundamental ways, its frankly surprising more people do not get expelled even with broad coalitions.
For voters who voted to end free movement, regain control of fishing waters, do our own trade deals etc Brexit has upsides
Why would you expect people to be sympathetic to other people being allowed to dodge rules by spending extra money?
I had sympathy for people who were stuck in Spanish hotels when this was just starting, but people know the risk they are taking now. They have to take responsibility for it.
As fewer people went on overseas holidays maybe theyd be less sympathetic?
If your nextdoor neighbours had saved to take their kids on holiday after a tough year, and then the kids couldn't go to school and they couldn't work for a fortnight, then on a personal level of course you're sympathetic.
If they whined about it and demanded compensation or a change to the decision (as TV talking heads have), that sympathy runs out pretty quickly, as it was a risk they ran.
Shit, no good.
Johnson and Cummings both have high opinions of their abilities but have no idea that reality falls woefully short of their self- assured genius.
If I really believed in Scottish independence, I'd probably give Brexit some time, then leave the UK but not back in to the EU. I actually think it's a boon to independence to have someone leave the EU on behalf of Scotland - it's like getting half way there and not even having to take responsibility for it. And there's a minority within the indy movement that agrees. Most obviously don't.
So there will be shy Trump supporters and shy Biden ones, as well as proud Trump supporters and proud Biden ones.
My issue is whether we should assume there is as much logic in weighting for shy Trump in 2020 as in 2016.
I'd suggest not - it's a little different for us being insulated from it in the UK, but a lot of the last four years in the USA have been about normalising views and a style of doing business which were more shocking in 2016. Each Trump outburst is less shocking than the last and, although he's upped the ante to a degree to maintain impact, there is surely an extent to which people are desensitised.
Wilson believed that scientific progress was the key to economic and social advancement, as such he famously referred to the "white heat of technology", in reference to the modernisation of British industry. This was to be achieved through a new Ministry of Technology (shortened to 'Mintech') which would coordinate research and development and support the swift adoption of new technology by industry, aided by government-funded infrastructure improvements
Pure Cummings, isn't it?
In was in relation to Jane tweeting about comic relief @SongBird2407 that she'd ‘gone through about 5 boxes of kleenex’ whilst watching the distressing scenes.
Young responded with: “Me Too, I havn’t w***** so much in ages.” #ComicRelief
I defy anyone to say they haven't laughed at a similar risque joke in the past containing controversy or dark humour.
This sort of stuff is the staple of comedy club stand-ups.
I like this line of thinkign in response to Matt - apparently some people haven't noticed that the 'they' that won't allow Corbyn to be PM is the public.
https://twitter.com/5_mini_Daves/status/1301911786766192640
Post Brexit UK will still be an independent member of the UN Security Council, still have its own army and still have the £ and stamps with the Queen's head on
No political decision in the world has all down sides.
It's just you aren't able to see them because your world view is too EU centric.
https://www.ft.com/content/745e34a1-0ca7-432c-b062-950c20e41f03
It was because of the UK that Scots had the chance to shape much of world affairs over the past 300 years.
That hasn't changed.
(PS. And even the Falkland Islands currently issue their own stamps - if that's a deal-breaker then I'm sure something can be arranged)
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1301882885000105990?s=20
We have (slightly) different ones for the crown dependencies and overseas territories.
As this is about identity I see no harm in allowing Scots to express theirs more whilst also remaining British citizens.
https://twitter.com/danhollandnews/status/1301922559739523072?s=21
One mayor for this huge area is ridiculous.
His leadership during the Chinese flu pandemic has been poor-to-indifferent - he did not impose a ridiculously strict lockdown like in France and Italy, but has resorted to gimmicks and focus groups rather than giving the country a clear strategy and direction. The same is likely to be true of his industrial strategy and levelling up and so on.
Overall, I'd rate him as better than average, but not as good as Mrs Thatcher, the truly outstanding peacetime leader we've produced for at least a century. But it's early days yet, of course - he could be around for another decade if he lasts as long as she did, and her great qualities did not emerge immediately.
Of our other recent Prime Ministers, the real turkeys are Ted Heath and Gordon Brown. Most of the rest were indifferent.
This shows why independence is long overdue
The answer is devo max and full autonomy. Not window dressing.
We had “British” passports in the EU and that wasn’t enough for you!
BTW John Cleese was old farting away on R4 the other day saying he couldn't imagine a "woke joke". Seemed to think "woke" meant being overly nice and sensitive about everything rather than, whether one is nice or not, being aware of deep-rooted inequalities of race and gender.
Still, very funny in his time, Cleese.
What is appropriate stand up is often not appropriate for someone wanting a career in politics, and rightly so.
Not Toby's only offence either...
I have always considered Scottish separation to be by orders of magnitude 'tougher', 'more severe', 'more challenging' than Brexit, because of thankfully we never got to the stage where we depended on shared EU institutions for any of the necessities of statehood. It is certainly more tangible in that sense.
Thankfully, this particular piece of string will never be pushed up this particular hill. But I'd still love to know who keeps bringing it back, and why.
But it’s choppy waters. And wine. In my case. Poseidon and Aeolus, forcing me to Linger in Pelion.
I stress - (a) I accept a lot of English won't accept it - but (b) that's the only way for the Union to survive in the long run, as SKS at least recognises.