Nothing to bet on and no gym to go to and no plane I can fuck off on.
My gym is fully closed for the first time since they started reopening in June (?) with classes of four in the carpark under individual gazebos.
They had been running a "2 people meeting outside" scheme where kit was booked and people exercised on their own on the grass to a published routine, but that has stopped and portable kit is currently lent out to members with online routines being provided via Facebook as in March-May.
The coach and major domo are in socially distanced to resource the online service.
This time we have not lost a single member, as (I guess) one month is short enough a period to see the end.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
I suspect that when the Scots see what a balls up Brexit is after 47 years they will start to wonder what Scottish independence will be like after 217.
The discussion about the border, if Scotland were to joim the EU, would be very interesting.
The EU would be unlikely to accept anything expect a full physical border.
Not possible here given we are hooked to medieval superstition in the shape of the C of E. Remind me why an unpopular church - any church - is part of the firmament of state again?
Yes, because I'm sure if lawyers force Starmer to restore the whip to Corbyn it will make Starmer magically inclind to listen to him in future, and ensure loyalty from Corbyn.
I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)
The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.
It is settled based on projected EC votes.
By whom it is projected is not stated.
They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
To be fair it doesn't need to.
44 states are not disputed, so there's no reason not to settle them.
In 6 states there are ongoing court cases. Yes Betfair could settle them before the court cases are resolved, but if a court case goes in Trump's favour (not going to happen, but if it does) then what does Betfair do then?
Betfair are within their rights to wait until the court cases are settled.
I think they are within their rights to wait for individual state certification, and pay out on the overall markets (winning party etc) when 270 is reached.
I don`t believe that are within their rights to postpone settlement until all court cases are exhausted though.
When a state result is certified then this has to satisfy the "projected" in the BF rules, surely.
Aren't the court cases likely to be settled before the certification occurs?
This is like watching the end of an empire in real time. Earlier today I was suggesting Brexiteer MPs who refuse to read the UK-EU legal text but will instead judge it on the number of pages were fools. However they are intellectual titans compared to Giuliani.
BTW, this standup guy is the other Wayne County board member for the GOP...
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
I suspect that when the Scots see what a balls up Brexit is after 47 years they will start to wonder what Scottish independence will be like after 217.
Even if that were the scenario, the attractions of sticking with and being imposed upon by the folk who brought about that Brexit would appear to be limited.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
There IS a moral dimension, and it shouldn`t be just about maximising party appeal to voters. If he is expelled or loses the whip this should be just - and I`m not convinced that it is. I don`t believe he is racist for one moment - and I don`t think you do either. The voters elected him. What are the grounds for him losing the whip?
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
Yes, because I'm sure if lawyers force Starmer to restore the whip to Corbyn it will make Starmer magically inclind to listen to him in future, and ensure loyalty from Corbyn.
I was surprised Starmer kept the issue in the headlines by not returning the whip. AIUI whether or not he is able to stand as a Labour candidate at the next election doesn’t depend on the whip; it depends on membership (now restored) and approval by the local party. So Corbyn is in a sort of limbo position which is going to fester until something gives one way or the other.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
There is a moral dimension, and it shouldn`t be just about maximising party appeal to voters. If he is expelled or loses the whip this should be just - and I`m not convinced that it is. I don`t believe he is racist for one moment - and I don`t think you do either. The voters elected him. What are the grounds for him losing the whip?
The case that he is a racist is weak, hard to know for certain but I doubt he is. The case that he is an enabler of racists, and importantly has continued that into Starmers leadership, is much clearer and I have little doubt he is guilty on that charge.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
A good summary, and I'm in much the same position.
One noticeable feature is that the radical left in the parliamentary party is so weak now, intellectually. If you look at the names of the 28 Socialist Campaign Group MPs who published a tweet yesterday 'demanding' Corbyn be reinstated, they are an unimpressive group and none of them would be a great loss. There's only McDonnell, and maybe Clive Lewis, who I'd rate. A far cry from the days when Tony Benn and a few others brought real intellectual rigour to the left caucus in the PLP.
Yes, because I'm sure if lawyers force Starmer to restore the whip to Corbyn it will make Starmer magically inclind to listen to him in future, and ensure loyalty from Corbyn.
I was surprised Starmer kept the issue in the headlines by not returning the whip. AIUI whether or not he is able to stand as a Labour candidate at the next election doesn’t depend on the whip; it depends on membership (now restored) and approval by the local party. So Corbyn is in a sort of limbo position which is going to fester until something gives one way or the other.
I was surprised too, since the specific issue Corbyn was suspended for was 'resolved' by Corbyn's phony clarification of what he meant. My best guess is that Starmer knew that Corbyn, through his outriders, would act as if he had been totally vindicated in everything he said (even though he pretended to roll back on it with his clarification), so Starmer decided to hold back the restoration of the whip to make clear to Corbyn that he may be back in the party, but that doesn't mean Starmer thinks his trying to undermine him (as he definitely did) has been forgotten. It was a warning to tread carefully.
I don't think he is trying to expel him or even keep him out forever. He just doesn't want Corbyn to have illusions of influence as a grandee (which he would no doubt like) nor that he can expect defiance to be ignored as it was before he became Leader. What Corbyn wants is the acclaim he got as Leader with the freedom to say what he likes withotu consequence from when he was a nobody.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
There is a moral dimension, and it shouldn`t be just about maximising party appeal to voters. If he is expelled or loses the whip this should be just - and I`m not convinced that it is. I don`t believe he is racist for one moment - and I don`t think you do either. The voters elected him. What are the grounds for him losing the whip?
The case that he is a racist is weak, hard to know for certain but I doubt he is. The case that he is an enabler of racists, and importantly has continued that into Starmers leadership, is much clearer and I have little doubt he is guilty on that charge.
Yes, that`s possibly fair. The problem, for me, stems right back to the definition of antisemitism, which makes it difficult for the left to rail against Israeli policy. The LP eventually, under much pressure, caved and adopted the definition. This was a mistake and I said so at the time.
O/T There is an incredible amount of Construction Work going on in Hampshire/Sussex at the moment. We are busier then we have ever been. We are also doing loads of tenders for work in the Spring. We really did not expect this to happen.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
O/T There is an incredible amount of Construction Work going on in Hampshire/Sussex at the moment. We are busier then we have ever been. We are also doing loads of tenders for work in the Spring. We really did not expect this to happen.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
Don't know about 'far', but yes, they are unlikely to be worse.
I was actually thinking of someone else (don't want to name him in case I am being unfair) - unconscriously hadn't even bothered to consider Mr R-M!
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
There is a moral dimension, and it shouldn`t be just about maximising party appeal to voters. If he is expelled or loses the whip this should be just - and I`m not convinced that it is. I don`t believe he is racist for one moment - and I don`t think you do either. The voters elected him. What are the grounds for him losing the whip?
The case that he is a racist is weak, hard to know for certain but I doubt he is. The case that he is an enabler of racists, and importantly has continued that into Starmers leadership, is much clearer and I have little doubt he is guilty on that charge.
Yes, that`s possibly fair. The problem, for me, stems right back to the definition of antisemitism, which makes it difficult for the left to rail against Israeli policy. The LP eventually, under much pressure, caved and adopted the definition. This was a mistake and I said so at the time.
I think the Israeli govt has behaved disgracefully over a number of decades. It is one of at least several dozen governments to have done so. If the vast majority of the hard left UK political railing, is about Israel, when it is one of many countries creating global problems isn't that in itself problematic?
So he's just lost an election to the most conservative of Conservative Government's in British history, yet making a socially liberal government electable means not a jot.
It's all about Jeremy, and Len and Ian and Richard and Barry and Laura and Becci. Stuff free school meals and homelessness and international aid and everything else. It's all about Jeremy and his "legacy" (titter!)
Had an update from my friends at Total Fitness. Saying two things: that minimum commitment is 12 monthly direct debit payments, and that frozen months are added to the end. This is a fascinating read of the contract!
There are seven clauses in the contract which refer to the minimum commitment being 12 months. One of these clauses also adds a requirement for a minimum of 12 "equal monthly instalments" - but doesn't allow them to extend the 12 month period in the event that they haven't taken them. I have it in writing that my contract has been "extended" because they haven't taken these "equal monthly" payments.
Their point about frozen months added to the end. Well aside from the written confirmation that they have extended my contract (...!) the clause they are quoting is explicitly about members *requesting* a freeze from TF which they will then add to the end. Doesn't say anything about them arbitrarily freezing and adding to the end.
I'm not a lawyer, but I understand contract law as I have to negotiate and sign them before the lawyers sign them off. The reason why contracts can be so lengthy and specific is because they have to be. A clause that says if party x asks y then both agree z does not allow y to not ask x and do z anyway.
Suspect this one will run on, I'm not the only member of this gym in the same boat nor are they the only gym chain trying this. It reminds me a lot of the parking "industry" where they rely on half baked Terms & Conditions, threats and bluster to scare motorists into paying "fines". I didn't let my bullshit parking ticket stand nor will I let this stand.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
I'm not sure. I'd be interested to know (but by then they will have imp-lemented Brexit, too, unless Mr Gove can shoulder Mr Hancock aside as health minister).
So he's just lost an election to the most conservative of Conservative Government's in British history, yet making a socially liberal government electable means not a jot.
It's all about Jeremy, and Len and Ian and Richard and Barry and Laura and Becci. Stuff free school meals and homelessness and international aid and everything else. It's all about Jeremy and his "legacy" (titter!)
It's why I question that his humble manner denotes that he is actually humble. His aims, his image, his purity, have always seemed more important than anything else.
Not possible here given we are hooked to medieval superstition in the shape of the C of E. Remind me why an unpopular church - any church - is part of the firmament of state again?
I don't think signing up to those principles would be a problem for the Anglicans. Catholics may blanch at the rules on foreign interference, but quite reasonable principles for any religion.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
Don't know about 'far', but yes, they are unlikely to be worse.
I was actually thinking of someone else (don't want to name him in case I am being unfair) - unconscriously hadn't even bothered to consider Mr R-M!
Was it the prime hunk of Scotch beefcake representing the constituency of Surrey Heath by any chance?
Had an update from my friends at Total Fitness. Saying two things: that minimum commitment is 12 monthly direct debit payments, and that frozen months are added to the end. This is a fascinating read of the contract!
There are seven clauses in the contract which refer to the minimum commitment being 12 months. One of these clauses also adds a requirement for a minimum of 12 "equal monthly instalments" - but doesn't allow them to extend the 12 month period in the event that they haven't taken them. I have it in writing that my contract has been "extended" because they haven't taken these "equal monthly" payments.
Their point about frozen months added to the end. Well aside from the written confirmation that they have extended my contract (...!) the clause they are quoting is explicitly about members *requesting* a freeze from TF which they will then add to the end. Doesn't say anything about them arbitrarily freezing and adding to the end.
I'm not a lawyer, but I understand contract law as I have to negotiate and sign them before the lawyers sign them off. The reason why contracts can be so lengthy and specific is because they have to be. A clause that says if party x asks y then both agree z does not allow y to not ask x and do z anyway.
Suspect this one will run on, I'm not the only member of this gym in the same boat nor are they the only gym chain trying this. It reminds me a lot of the parking "industry" where they rely on half baked Terms & Conditions, threats and bluster to scare motorists into paying "fines". I didn't let my bullshit parking ticket stand nor will I let this stand.
They aren't cheating you out of anything, are they? When you signed up you went in knowing you'd be paying for the very least twelve months. I don't see what the fuss is about.
When Trump accused Sleepy Joe of hiding in his basement during the campaign, little did he realise that the basement was actually an ultra-secret hi-tech control centre, of the sort Cummings used to dream of, from which Joe was directing a multi-million-vote fraud operation.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
What utter bollox. Either way union is doomed, if he deigns to let the colony have one he will lose it , if he refuses we will be off anyway. There will be a majority in Holyrood and if SNP don't have a guaranteed referendum baked in to their manifesto they are toast. Only the timing is to be decided and their bribe to the army will not make any difference either.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
I'm not sure. I'd be interested to know (but by then they will have imp-lemented Brexit, too, unless Mr Gove can shoulder Mr Hancock aside as health minister).
Ah, found this. Paywall but I can see that Mr S of the Dishes was doing mildly well in the wake of free dinners and furlough - but Mr Gove even worse than Mr J. Which is what I had half suspected. Maybe you have access and can find Mr Hunt?
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
Don't know about 'far', but yes, they are unlikely to be worse.
I was actually thinking of someone else (don't want to name him in case I am being unfair) - unconscriously hadn't even bothered to consider Mr R-M!
Was it the prime hunk of Scotch beefcake representing the constituency of Surrey Heath by any chance?
So he's just lost an election to the most conservative of Conservative Government's in British history, yet making a socially liberal government electable means not a jot.
It's all about Jeremy, and Len and Ian and Richard and Barry and Laura and Becci. Stuff free school meals and homelessness and international aid and everything else. It's all about Jeremy and his "legacy" (titter!)
It's why I question that his humble manner denotes that he is actually humble. His aims, his image, his purity, have always seemed more important than anything else.
I never bought the humble man nonsense. He lives as comfortably as he needs to, he doesn't live to excess, but he lives comfortably. A single mum trying to bring up two children on minimum wage and family credits he is not.
It's like Scargill on the picket lines during the year long miners strike. He may have stood shoulder to shoulder with his brothers on the picket line, claiming to take no pay. Every night he went back to his tied house in Sheffield, his brothers went home to no food on the table.
I find comfortably off SWP apologists worse than Philip Davies, and that really is saying something.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
More absolute bollox, another pair of erses would fair no better. Take the pills please.
Had an update from my friends at Total Fitness. Saying two things: that minimum commitment is 12 monthly direct debit payments, and that frozen months are added to the end. This is a fascinating read of the contract!
There are seven clauses in the contract which refer to the minimum commitment being 12 months. One of these clauses also adds a requirement for a minimum of 12 "equal monthly instalments" - but doesn't allow them to extend the 12 month period in the event that they haven't taken them. I have it in writing that my contract has been "extended" because they haven't taken these "equal monthly" payments.
Their point about frozen months added to the end. Well aside from the written confirmation that they have extended my contract (...!) the clause they are quoting is explicitly about members *requesting* a freeze from TF which they will then add to the end. Doesn't say anything about them arbitrarily freezing and adding to the end.
I'm not a lawyer, but I understand contract law as I have to negotiate and sign them before the lawyers sign them off. The reason why contracts can be so lengthy and specific is because they have to be. A clause that says if party x asks y then both agree z does not allow y to not ask x and do z anyway.
Suspect this one will run on, I'm not the only member of this gym in the same boat nor are they the only gym chain trying this. It reminds me a lot of the parking "industry" where they rely on half baked Terms & Conditions, threats and bluster to scare motorists into paying "fines". I didn't let my bullshit parking ticket stand nor will I let this stand.
They aren't cheating you out of anything, are they? When you signed up you went in knowing you'd be paying for the very least twelve months. I don't see what the fuss is about.
I signed up for 12 months. I'm coming up on 12 months. I signed a contract that said that whilst I could ask to freeze a month for a holiday it would be added to the end. That was understood - I couldn't freeze a month and then quit having had 11 full months and a small payment in the freeze month.
I didn't sign an open-ended contract where they can choose when to provide their services and when they don't and keep me on the hook indefinitely. That word "cheat" - there is nothing in the contract regarding them being able to not provide contracted services and the contract remaining valid. They do not contractually have the ability to "freeze membership" - that is only referred to as the members asking (not demanding, nit imposing) a freeze.
So he's just lost an election to the most conservative of Conservative Government's in British history, yet making a socially liberal government electable means not a jot.
It's all about Jeremy, and Len and Ian and Richard and Barry and Laura and Becci. Stuff free school meals and homelessness and international aid and everything else. It's all about Jeremy and his "legacy" (titter!)
It's why I question that his humble manner denotes that he is actually humble. His aims, his image, his purity, have always seemed more important than anything else.
I never bought the humble man nonsense. He lives as comfortably as he needs to, he doesn't live to excess, but he lives comfortably. A single mum trying to bring up two children on minimum wage and family credits he is not.
It's like Scargill on the picket lines during the year long miners strike. He may have stood shoulder to shoulder with his brothers on the picket line, claiming to take no pay. Every night he went back to his tied house in Sheffield, his brothers went home to no food on the table.
I find comfortably off SWP apologists worse than Philip Davies, and that really is saying something.
I don't care that he is relatively well off, or has not had to suffer on a personal level. I think he is sincere in his beliefs and his own sense of not being in it for himself. But I think his focus on purity and his own honour mean that while he may think that, it's not as true as he thinks it is. He puts his own sense of self above achieving things, does not play the political game then complains the game is unfair.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Gove is at best as hated as Boris and more likely more as he is a snivelling lying Toom Tabard.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
There is a moral dimension, and it shouldn`t be just about maximising party appeal to voters. If he is expelled or loses the whip this should be just - and I`m not convinced that it is. I don`t believe he is racist for one moment - and I don`t think you do either. The voters elected him. What are the grounds for him losing the whip?
The case that he is a racist is weak, hard to know for certain but I doubt he is. The case that he is an enabler of racists, and importantly has continued that into Starmers leadership, is much clearer and I have little doubt he is guilty on that charge.
Yes, that`s possibly fair. The problem, for me, stems right back to the definition of antisemitism, which makes it difficult for the left to rail against Israeli policy. The LP eventually, under much pressure, caved and adopted the definition. This was a mistake and I said so at the time.
I think the Israeli govt has behaved disgracefully over a number of decades. It is one of at least several dozen governments to have done so. If the vast majority of the hard left UK political railing, is about Israel, when it is one of many countries creating global problems isn't that in itself problematic?
Some years ago I ran a teaching course in the West Bank for Christian Palestinian Doctors, including some teaching clinics in East Jerusalem and Hebron. The arrogance and rapraciousness of the Israeli settlers has to be seen to be believed, and I have a lot of time for the Palestinian cause.
I think that as British, our rule of the Holy Land from Balfour Declaration to 1948 is so bound up with the causes of the conflict that we should have the good grace to shut up about it. The hard Left's strange obsession with Israel, and near complete lack of interest in other political disputes in the region is hard to separate from what is at times blatant antisemitism.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Rather interesting on the importance of social distancing in suppressing virulent mutants, and feels right to me. Ms Spinney is a longstanding New Sci journo and author of a good book on the 1918-20 flu.
Patel - I guess Sir Philip didn't win his spurs jousting. Totally incorrect of me to say so of course, but what a wimp. Nonetheless this doesn't excuse misconduct. We'll see what emerges but PP may have overstepped. She's also a very clear take-out target politically.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
"Corbyn's lawyers questions whether procedures had been properly applied when the decision was taken."
Talking about procedures being properly applied when decisions were taken, have Corbyn's lawyers read the EHRC report...?
Starmer has the momentum (pun intended) behind him. Stand your ground Starmer! If he rolls over, he is forever their hostage.
Corbyn delivered to me an 80 seat Johnson majority Government. He really can just **** off!
Starmer retains the nuclear option - proscribe Momentum. Lansman's Limited Company is not part of Labour. Have membership of Momentum an expellable offence the same as membership of any other non-affiliated political movement.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
As a proven referendum winner, Gove should be the face of the No campaign for IndyRef2.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Gove is at best as hated as Boris and more likely more as he is a snivelling lying Toom Tabard.
Don't worry Malc, it wouldn't be Gove and I doubt Hunt as he's on the wrong side of the Brexit divide. Will be Sunak or someone unthought of. As I've said, Boris is a kind of anti-Heineken so far as Scots are concerned. Touches nerves no-one else can reach.
BTW - don't make me laugh whoever said UKGovt couldn't override wishes of Scottish Parl. Sturgeon regularly ignores votes at Holyrood she deems inexpedient.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
As a proven referendum winner, Gove should be the face of the No campaign for IndyRef2.
I'd like to see his popularity boom once he has implemented Brexit. But, seriously, he may end up doing that - or at leastr being the one hiding in the shade of Ian Murray or whoever from Slab fronts.
So he's just lost an election to the most conservative of Conservative Government's in British history, yet making a socially liberal government electable means not a jot.
It's all about Jeremy, and Len and Ian and Richard and Barry and Laura and Becci. Stuff free school meals and homelessness and international aid and everything else. It's all about Jeremy and his "legacy" (titter!)
It's why I question that his humble manner denotes that he is actually humble. His aims, his image, his purity, have always seemed more important than anything else.
I never bought the humble man nonsense. He lives as comfortably as he needs to, he doesn't live to excess, but he lives comfortably. A single mum trying to bring up two children on minimum wage and family credits he is not.
It's like Scargill on the picket lines during the year long miners strike. He may have stood shoulder to shoulder with his brothers on the picket line, claiming to take no pay. Every night he went back to his tied house in Sheffield, his brothers went home to no food on the table.
I find comfortably off SWP apologists worse than Philip Davies, and that really is saying something.
I don't care that he is relatively well off, or has not had to suffer on a personal level. I think he is sincere in his beliefs and his own sense of not being in it for himself. But I think his focus on purity and his own honour mean that while he may think that, it's not as true as he thinks it is. He puts his own sense of self above achieving things, does not play the political game then complains the game is unfair.
He is an ego tripper who is currently playing games himself yet claiming he is above the fray.
As for political purity. It doesn't put food on anyone's table. My definition of political sincerity would not include spending the Blair years filing through the lobbies with the Conservatives.
On his deathbed when he reviews his achievements, he will be disappointed to find his greatest achievement and legacy was delivering Boris Johnson an eighty seat majority.
Corbyn is not pure, he is not sincere. He is a failure!
Are we quite sure that these Giulani press conferences and appearance in court aren't part of a new Borat movie in which Rudy is playing the leading role, following his successful supporting role in the previous one?
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
As a proven referendum winner, Gove should be the face of the No campaign for IndyRef2.
Presume that's a joke. I f the Ref was to happen now, the NO campaign would be fronted by Gordon Brown, with Ruth Davidson as sidekick.
Are we quite sure that these Giulani press conferences and appearance in court aren't part of a new Borat movie in which Rudy is playing the leading role, following his successful supporting role in the previous one?
Are we quite sure that these Giulani press conferences and appearance in court aren't part of a new Borat movie in which Rudy is playing the leading role, following his successful supporting role in the previous one?
Who came up with the idea of having Grecian 2000 running down his face?
"Corbyn's lawyers questions whether procedures had been properly applied when the decision was taken."
Talking about procedures being properly applied when decisions were taken, have Corbyn's lawyers read the EHRC report...?
Starmer has the momentum (pun intended) behind him. Stand your ground Starmer! If he rolls over, he is forever their hostage.
Corbyn delivered to me an 80 seat Johnson majority Government. He really can just **** off!
Starmer retains the nuclear option - proscribe Momentum. Lansman's Limited Company is not part of Labour. Have membership of Momentum an expellable offence the same as membership of any other non-affiliated political movement.
I agree, Momentum are a party within a party
I am not entirely sure that the short term defunding by Len and his mates would end up being a bad move either. It could be problematic in the long term however. Although a distancing from Union Barons would probably also work in the Party's favour.
I can't work out the purity argument PB Tories bestow on Corbyn when decrying Starmer as a man of no principles.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
There IS a moral dimension, and it shouldn`t be just about maximising party appeal to voters. If he is expelled or loses the whip this should be just - and I`m not convinced that it is. I don`t believe he is racist for one moment - and I don`t think you do either. The voters elected him. What are the grounds for him losing the whip?
Ok, so what I meant was the big moral imperative is to ensure antisemitism finds an inhospitable place in Labour. And for this it's necessary imo that expressing antisemitic sentiment be a red card. No longer a member if you do that. Corbyn with the whip or not is not germane to this. I get what you're saying here, that there is a duty to not treat the man unjustly, expel him and effectively label him as a racist, but I'm placing the electoral fortunes of the party above that. As to whether he is or he isn't (antisemitic), I also don't believe he is, but I'm not totally sure about it. I am sure the driving sentiment is anti-Israel and anti-America rather than racial prejudice against Jewish people. But Israel is the Jewish state, backed heavily by America, and almost all of the world's Jews live in these 2 places. So, you know, you need a good compass to walk the line.
After failing repeatedly in court to overturn election results, President Trump is taking the extraordinary step of reaching out directly to Republican state legislators as he tries to subvert the Electoral College process, inviting Michigan lawmakers to meet with him at the White House on Friday.
Are we quite sure that these Giulani press conferences and appearance in court aren't part of a new Borat movie in which Rudy is playing the leading role, following his successful supporting role in the previous one?
Who came up with the idea of having Grecian 2000 running down his face?
Yes, it's sheer genius. It's a bit over the top for Sacha Baron Cohen, so I imagine Rudy must be contributing to the script. The Four Seasons Landscaping Car Park scene was another highlight.
After failing repeatedly in court to overturn election results, President Trump is taking the extraordinary step of reaching out directly to Republican state legislators as he tries to subvert the Electoral College process, inviting Michigan lawmakers to meet with him at the White House on Friday.
NYTimes blog
Its an attempted coup. A particularly ham-fisted one but still a coup. He at least is smart enough to know that the actual election is the electoral college, not the public vote. So if he can get rival electors appointed he can still win. I know, its an outrage. But so is he.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
So in your world only the Jews care about perceived anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
A good summary, and I'm in much the same position.
One noticeable feature is that the radical left in the parliamentary party is so weak now, intellectually. If you look at the names of the 28 Socialist Campaign Group MPs who published a tweet yesterday 'demanding' Corbyn be reinstated, they are an unimpressive group and none of them would be a great loss. There's only McDonnell, and maybe Clive Lewis, who I'd rate. A far cry from the days when Tony Benn and a few others brought real intellectual rigour to the left caucus in the PLP.
I agree with you there. McDonnell and Lewis. They are "quality left" (as it were) and I hope they play a role under Starmer. Lewis in particular.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
And Scots & English (& Welsh for all I know). A unifying force!
After failing repeatedly in court to overturn election results, President Trump is taking the extraordinary step of reaching out directly to Republican state legislators as he tries to subvert the Electoral College process, inviting Michigan lawmakers to meet with him at the White House on Friday.
NYTimes blog
"I have so little evidence I cannot win in court, so how about you destroy your own integrity based on that lack of evidence".
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
As a proven referendum winner, Gove should be the face of the No campaign for IndyRef2.
Presume that's a joke. I f the Ref was to happen now, the NO campaign would be fronted by Gordon Brown, with Ruth Davidson as sidekick.
There can be no better surety of Scottish Independence than having Brown argue against. Labour has happily disowned the awfulness of Corbyn, and now they should lance the Brown boil.
Is anyone seriously impressed by the government spending billions and squillions on more military? I thought it was a joke until I heard it wasn't. We are now about to be little island nation on our own. Fishing's about as exciting as it's going to get
After failing repeatedly in court to overturn election results, President Trump is taking the extraordinary step of reaching out directly to Republican state legislators as he tries to subvert the Electoral College process, inviting Michigan lawmakers to meet with him at the White House on Friday.
NYTimes blog
Its an attempted coup. A particularly ham-fisted one but still a coup. He at least is smart enough to know that the actual election is the electoral college, not the public vote. So if he can get rival electors appointed he can still win. I know, its an outrage. But so is he.
If it happens the USA will join a list of non democratic countries. What a legacy for a one term president.
After failing repeatedly in court to overturn election results, President Trump is taking the extraordinary step of reaching out directly to Republican state legislators as he tries to subvert the Electoral College process, inviting Michigan lawmakers to meet with him at the White House on Friday.
NYTimes blog
"I have so little evidence I cannot win in court, so how about you destroy your own integrity based on that lack of evidence".
People seem so in awe of the Trump cult that they are prepared to destroy their integrity as far as I can see. Look at the entire GOP. Hardly anyone left with any integrity.
Online news and lifestyle site Buzzfeed is buying the Huffington Post in a deal that will bring together two of the most high-profile digital media firms.
I thought BuzzFeed were in the doo doo, closing the UK operation, laying off load of staff?
As the wrangling continues, so does the counting. Biden now has more than 79.5 million votes while Trump has 73.6 million so the gap closes on 6 million.
Picking up my State numbers from last night and those not yet at 99% are:
Washington DC (95% counted) Illinois (98%) Kentucky (98%) Iowa (98%) Maine (92%) - Biden now leads by 9.9% Maryland (95%) Massachusetts (95%) New York (84%) Ohio (97%) Oregon (98%)
Trump has won three of these and Biden the other seven so it seems reasonable the gap will widen past 6 million and it may now be the case Biden will break 80 million votes cast but we'll see.
Is anyone seriously impressed by the government spending billions and squillions on more military? I thought it was a joke until I heard it wasn't. We are now about to be little island nation on our own. Fishing's about as exciting as it's going to get
All about currying favour with Biden now in the desperate hope of a trade deal.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
So in your world only the Jews care about perceived anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
Not sure how you're getting that. I'm not a Jew, for example, and I care about both perceived and actual antisemitism in the Labour Party. The actual because it's an abomination, even when it's not perceived, and the perceived because it hits the Labour vote, even when it's not actual.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
As a proven referendum winner, Gove should be the face of the No campaign for IndyRef2.
Presume that's a joke. I f the Ref was to happen now, the NO campaign would be fronted by Gordon Brown, with Ruth Davidson as sidekick.
There can be no better surety of Scottish Independence than having Brown argue against. Labour has happily disowned the awfulness of Corbyn, and now they should lance the Brown boil.
Oh? Why do you say that, please? (From a UK wide P of V., not the referendum - thoiugh after his long series of worthless promises before and after indyref 1, he wouldn't be great for that).
After failing repeatedly in court to overturn election results, President Trump is taking the extraordinary step of reaching out directly to Republican state legislators as he tries to subvert the Electoral College process, inviting Michigan lawmakers to meet with him at the White House on Friday.
NYTimes blog
"I have so little evidence I cannot win in court, so how about you destroy your own integrity based on that lack of evidence".
People seem so in awe of the Trump cult that they are prepared to destroy their integrity as far as I can see. Look at the entire GOP. Hardly anyone left with any integrity.
I find it genuinely mystifying. Trump will be gone in a few years’ time. The memory of how the GOP have outraged democracy will live for much longer.
I presume this is the fanaticism of social media. There are allegations of threats against the Wayne County GOP election canvassers which were apparently so bad as to compel them to certify the results and then rescind that certification.
I'm all for accountability and transparency but if you politicise everything this is the logical outcome.
Is anyone seriously impressed by the government spending billions and squillions on more military? I thought it was a joke until I heard it wasn't. We are now about to be little island nation on our own. Fishing's about as exciting as it's going to get
Yes I am impressed. Never seen a conservative government spend so much money, without asking where it is all coming from.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
I like Michael Gove. He is clever, industrious, witty and a good debater. But I have to say that my experience is that your experience is not entirely universal.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
As a proven referendum winner, Gove should be the face of the No campaign for IndyRef2.
Presume that's a joke. I f the Ref was to happen now, the NO campaign would be fronted by Gordon Brown, with Ruth Davidson as sidekick.
There can be no better surety of Scottish Independence than having Brown argue against. Labour has happily disowned the awfulness of Corbyn, and now they should lance the Brown boil.
Oh? Why do you say that, please? (From a UK wide P of V., not the referendum - thoiugh after his long series of worthless promises before and after indyref 1, he wouldn't be great for that).
Brown is widely respected in Scotland, particularly on the economy where he would be a very formidable debater. Don't think Nicola would be quite so anguine about taking him on as you guys may be.
I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.
If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.
Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.
It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.
Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
So in your world only the Jews care about perceived anti-semitism in the Labour Party.
Not sure how you're getting that. I'm not a Jew, for example, and I care about both perceived and actual antisemitism in the Labour Party. The actual because it's an abomination, even when it's not perceived, and the perceived because it hits the Labour vote, even when it's not actual.
The fight (over Corbyn) as you see it is between the left and the Jewish community.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
As a proven referendum winner, Gove should be the face of the No campaign for IndyRef2.
Presume that's a joke. I f the Ref was to happen now, the NO campaign would be fronted by Gordon Brown, with Ruth Davidson as sidekick.
There can be no better surety of Scottish Independence than having Brown argue against. Labour has happily disowned the awfulness of Corbyn, and now they should lance the Brown boil.
Oh? Why do you say that, please? (From a UK wide P of V., not the referendum - thoiugh after his long series of worthless promises before and after indyref 1, he wouldn't be great for that).
Brown is widely respected in Scotland, particularly on the economy where he would be a very formidable debater. Don't think Nicola would be quite so anguine about taking him on as you guys may be.
He wasn't a debater at all. Just gave speeches on his own. And, as I say, his promises had not then been exploded.
"Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"
Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...
It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
Well, it does a bit better.... I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris. While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref. All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?
Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.
Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.
And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.
Why he should:
It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
If he does and wins it preserves the Union.
Why he won't:
He doesn't have to.
It isn't in his interests to lose.
He doesn't think he can win.
We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
He won't allow a referendum because it would be an enormous distraction and he would lose if the choice is him or Sturgeon. A new PM would reset things, whether say, Starmer or Sunak. Anyone would be better than Boris by a country mile.
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
'Anyone'? I can think of at least one person who could be even worse.
So can I. But I doubt JRM is a serious contender.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
How are Gove and Hunt regarded north of the border?
Hunt I don't know, but Gove is universally loathed everywhere in the country by Tories and Labour.
Whenever I meet Scots, they almost always - unprompted - bring up their love for Michael Gove. @malcolmg must hang out in some pretty strange circles if he's not hearing the same thing.
As a proven referendum winner, Gove should be the face of the No campaign for IndyRef2.
Presume that's a joke. I f the Ref was to happen now, the NO campaign would be fronted by Gordon Brown, with Ruth Davidson as sidekick.
There can be no better surety of Scottish Independence than having Brown argue against. Labour has happily disowned the awfulness of Corbyn, and now they should lance the Brown boil.
Oh? Why do you say that, please? (From a UK wide P of V., not the referendum - thoiugh after his long series of worthless promises before and after indyref 1, he wouldn't be great for that).
Brown is widely respected in Scotland, particularly on the economy where he would be a very formidable debater. Don't think Nicola would be quite so anguine about taking him on as you guys may be.
He has surely got to be better than Alastair Darling. I think Better Together winning pretty comfortably under his leadership was a seriously underrated achievement.
Comments
They had been running a "2 people meeting outside" scheme where kit was booked and people exercised on their own on the grass to a published routine, but that has stopped and portable kit is currently lent out to members with online routines being provided via Facebook as in March-May.
The coach and major domo are in socially distanced to resource the online service.
This time we have not lost a single member, as (I guess) one month is short enough a period to see the end.
The EU would be unlikely to accept anything expect a full physical border.
https://twitter.com/DelWilber/status/1328860684352950278
On the legals - good luck with that. Maybe SNP could recruit Rudy to argue the case.
Which is consistent with his own behaviour between 2016 and 2019 in what way exactly?
One noticeable feature is that the radical left in the parliamentary party is so weak now, intellectually. If you look at the names of the 28 Socialist Campaign Group MPs who published a tweet yesterday 'demanding' Corbyn be reinstated, they are an unimpressive group and none of them would be a great loss. There's only McDonnell, and maybe Clive Lewis, who I'd rate. A far cry from the days when Tony Benn and a few others brought real intellectual rigour to the left caucus in the PLP.
I don't think he is trying to expel him or even keep him out forever. He just doesn't want Corbyn to have illusions of influence as a grandee (which he would no doubt like) nor that he can expect defiance to be ignored as it was before he became Leader. What Corbyn wants is the acclaim he got as Leader with the freedom to say what he likes withotu consequence from when he was a nobody.
There is a visceral dislike of Boris in many a Scottish household which did not apply to Theresa May or even David Cameron. Someone like Rishi Sunak or Sir Keir would be far more acceptable. Think we can agree on that?
Rugby Union gets £135m out of a £300m sport budget! Crazy, not even any pretence at fairness.
I was actually thinking of someone else (don't want to name him in case I am being unfair) - unconscriously hadn't even bothered to consider Mr R-M!
It's all about Jeremy, and Len and Ian and Richard and Barry and Laura and Becci. Stuff free school meals and homelessness and international aid and everything else. It's all about Jeremy and his "legacy" (titter!)
There are seven clauses in the contract which refer to the minimum commitment being 12 months. One of these clauses also adds a requirement for a minimum of 12 "equal monthly instalments" - but doesn't allow them to extend the 12 month period in the event that they haven't taken them. I have it in writing that my contract has been "extended" because they haven't taken these "equal monthly" payments.
Their point about frozen months added to the end. Well aside from the written confirmation that they have extended my contract (...!) the clause they are quoting is explicitly about members *requesting* a freeze from TF which they will then add to the end. Doesn't say anything about them arbitrarily freezing and adding to the end.
I'm not a lawyer, but I understand contract law as I have to negotiate and sign them before the lawyers sign them off. The reason why contracts can be so lengthy and specific is because they have to be. A clause that says if party x asks y then both agree z does not allow y to not ask x and do z anyway.
Suspect this one will run on, I'm not the only member of this gym in the same boat nor are they the only gym chain trying this. It reminds me a lot of the parking "industry" where they rely on half baked Terms & Conditions, threats and bluster to scare motorists into paying "fines". I didn't let my bullshit parking ticket stand nor will I let this stand.
https://twitter.com/Pulpstar/status/1329492162845806595
How can it possibly be settled according to what they've said regarding other states ?
Was it the prime hunk of Scotch beefcake representing the constituency of Surrey Heath by any chance?
Talking about procedures being properly applied when decisions were taken, have Corbyn's lawyers read the EHRC report...?
I don't think BF is gonna pay out just yet, chaps.
https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/rishi-sunak-chancellor-popularity-scotland-coronavirus-response-furlough-scheme-574049
It's like Scargill on the picket lines during the year long miners strike. He may have stood shoulder to shoulder with his brothers on the picket line, claiming to take no pay. Every night he went back to his tied house in Sheffield, his brothers went home to no food on the table.
I find comfortably off SWP apologists worse than Philip Davies, and that really is saying something.
I didn't sign an open-ended contract where they can choose when to provide their services and when they don't and keep me on the hook indefinitely. That word "cheat" - there is nothing in the contract regarding them being able to not provide contracted services and the contract remaining valid. They do not contractually have the ability to "freeze membership" - that is only referred to as the members asking (not demanding, nit imposing) a freeze.
I think that as British, our rule of the Holy Land from Balfour Declaration to 1948 is so bound up with the causes of the conflict that we should have the good grace to shut up about it. The hard Left's strange obsession with Israel, and near complete lack of interest in other political disputes in the region is hard to separate from what is at times blatant antisemitism.
We have no further useful part to play there.
Corbyn delivered to me an 80 seat Johnson majority Government. He really can just **** off!
Rather interesting on the importance of social distancing in suppressing virulent mutants, and feels right to me. Ms Spinney is a longstanding New Sci journo and author of a good book on the 1918-20 flu.
Patel - I guess Sir Philip didn't win his spurs jousting. Totally incorrect of me to say so of course, but what a wimp. Nonetheless this doesn't excuse misconduct. We'll see what emerges but PP may have overstepped. She's also a very clear take-out target politically.
BTW - don't make me laugh whoever said UKGovt couldn't override wishes of Scottish Parl. Sturgeon regularly ignores votes at Holyrood she deems inexpedient.
As for political purity. It doesn't put food on anyone's table. My definition of political sincerity would not include spending the Blair years filing through the lobbies with the Conservatives.
On his deathbed when he reviews his achievements, he will be disappointed to find his greatest achievement and legacy was delivering Boris Johnson an eighty seat majority.
Corbyn is not pure, he is not sincere. He is a failure!
https://twitter.com/FirenzeMike/status/1329496817394966528
I am not entirely sure that the short term defunding by Len and his mates would end up being a bad move either. It could be problematic in the long term however. Although a distancing from Union Barons would probably also work in the Party's favour.
I can't work out the purity argument PB Tories bestow on Corbyn when decrying Starmer as a man of no principles.
NYTimes blog
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1329496086067748869?s=19
https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1329491977885376512?s=19
If this gets anywhere we are headed towards major civil unrest.
A unifying force!
What a legacy for a one term president.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55002339
I thought BuzzFeed were in the doo doo, closing the UK operation, laying off load of staff?
As the wrangling continues, so does the counting. Biden now has more than 79.5 million votes while Trump has 73.6 million so the gap closes on 6 million.
Picking up my State numbers from last night and those not yet at 99% are:
Washington DC (95% counted)
Illinois (98%)
Kentucky (98%)
Iowa (98%)
Maine (92%) - Biden now leads by 9.9%
Maryland (95%)
Massachusetts (95%)
New York (84%)
Ohio (97%)
Oregon (98%)
Trump has won three of these and Biden the other seven so it seems reasonable the gap will widen past 6 million and it may now be the case Biden will break 80 million votes cast but we'll see.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/1329499723997167617
https://twitter.com/SenPolehanki/status/1255899318210314241?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1255899318210314241|twgr^&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52496514
I'm all for accountability and transparency but if you politicise everything this is the logical outcome.
Never seen a conservative government spend so much money, without asking where it is all coming from.