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?
LOL, two sinking ships tying a line between themselves.
"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.
Well. yes, but I'm imagining him taking on Darling's role. I don't think Nicola vs Gordon would be a slam dunk for Nicola. Anyway, this is all very speculative as there isn't going to be an IndyRef for several years. Politics is so febrile that by 2024+ who knows what things will look like.
Given the wording of Betfair's rules they should pay out as states certify their votes. Betfair says it is based on projected EC votes, so the actual EC voters shouldn't matter.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Isn't sobering for HYUFD. He hasn't been on here because he had led a crack regiment of southern Tory Association chairs on a mission rebellious Scots to crush.
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.
I know you've all seen this bar chart before, but it just lampoons how Trump and his followers think
"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.
Well. yes, but I'm imagining him taking on Darling's role. I don't think Nicola vs Gordon would be a slam dunk for Nicola. Anyway, this is all very speculative as there isn't going to be an IndyRef for several years. Politics is so febrile that by 2024+ who knows what things will look like.
It'ss what - 12 years - since Mr Brown was doing very muich in Scotland's TVs other than promising massive devolution if we voted No. At the moment he's basically proimising UK-wide federalism to all and sundry, insofar as I can make sense of it
"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!
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.
It is often overlooked that the people SKS needs to add to the mix are those who don't currently vote Labour. Most of those are what lots of Labour left call 'scum' and 'vermin'. Jezza, TBF, never did that, but is best friends of those who do. I don't think many of these vermin will vote Labour until Jezza and friends are out, and Labour as a whole accept why loads of decent people don't vote for them.
As for intellect on the left. Where would one look? In the old days you might look at Benn but it is extremely telling that among those he failed to convince about the Left cause is his own son Hilary.
Has anyone noticed the non-published Patel report has been leaked to the BBC?
They added that the investigation had found evidence of bullying, even if it had not been intentional.
Another source who saw the report called it "unambiguous in stating that Priti Patel broke the ministerial code and that the prime minister buried it".
OK, this is a preliminary leak, but, assuming this is right... 1. Priti Patel ought to resign, shouldn't she? Unintenionality is no defence, is it? 2. She's going nowhere, is she?
Apart from upsetting Boris, his mate or his bird, is there any resigning offence for this government?
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
"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).
Ah well probably because I dislike him so - I'd probably not have posted otherwise. However even putting my personal contempt for him aside I think he's very poor as a communicator and incapable of inspiring anyone. He's also a bit thick.
Scotland deserves good advocates on both sides should it wish to have another referendum. Those advocates should be concerned with the issue rather than self-aggrandisement.
Given the wording of Betfair's rules they should pay out as states certify their votes. Betfair says it is based on projected EC votes, so the actual EC voters shouldn't matter.
The “projected votes” are as projected by the States certifying their results and appointing their EC electors.
The difference between this and the actual EC vote are any “faithless electors”, which are mentioned in the next sentence of the Betfair rules.
They’re not paying out until all 50 states have certified their results.
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.
It is often overlooked that the people SKS needs to add to the mix are those who don't currently vote Labour. Most of those are what lots of Labour left call 'scum' and 'vermin'. Jezza, TBF, never did that, but is best friends of those who do. I don't think many of these vermin will vote Labour until Jezza and friends are out, and Labour as a whole accept why loads of decent people don't vote for them.
As for intellect on the left. Where would one look? In the old days you might look at Benn but it is extremely telling that among those he failed to convince about the Left cause is his own son Hilary.
It’s not overlooked by the electorate, who gave the Tories a large majority when Corbyn was in charge.
See also the US Democrats, who managed a lot of not-Trump votes at the top, but woefully underperformed down the ticket, thanks to their attachment to the loony left who want to defund the police and call all white people racist.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
I think that's the point. There is very little enthusiasm for another referendum. Another reason why Boris will brush it away. At some point the economic ramifications of Covid will become centre stage and the conversation will change. Boris et al will play it long. No alternative really so an easy decision to make. (And there's always the chance of Salmond taking out Sturgeon).
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
I think that's the point. There is very little enthusiasm for another referendum. Another reason why Boris will brush it away. At some point the economic ramifications of Covid will become centre stage and the conversation will change. Boris et al will play it long. No alternative really so an easy decision to make. (And there's always the chance of Salmond taking out Sturgeon).
If there was a vote now Yes would probably win. Boris will play for time and hope something comes up. It's not really a plan, and has some big risks, but from his perspective it's easier.
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
Problem is, that while the Michigan legislature has the right to change the way Electors are appointed, as per the Constitution, the current process whereby the state's Electors are chosen by popular vote is enshrined in state law (as it is in every state). To change this would itself require an act of the legislature. Even leaving aside the fact that the US Constitution forbids ex post facto laws at both federal and state level, so such a change could not come into effect until 2024, the Republicans do not have a supermajority in either chamber. The Democratic governor of Michigan therefore can, and undoubtably will, veto any such attempt.
Not that I think the GOP will even try: right now the legislators are probably having a heated argument about exactly who gets the unenviable job of breaking the news that Steiner's offensive didn't take place to the Fuhrer.
Mostly I think Carnyx I've already answered. Brown made Blairism crap though, and stalled the evolution of Labour from their 19th Century roots for perhaps a long while. Burgessian - the electoral evidence for Brown's great standing is pretty limited isn't it?
I would like to make a suggestion. If the plan to improve public trust involves paying your mates thousands of pounds per day for advice on how to rebuild public trust it may have the opposite impact!
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
I'll be fascinated to learn how you unintentionally fail to treat people with respect and unintentionally fail to not bully them, and why that matters.
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
Problem is, that while the Michigan legislature has the right to change the way Electors are appointed, as per the Constitution, the current process whereby the state's Electors are chosen by popular vote is enshrined in state law (as it is in every state). To change this would itself require an act of the legislature. Even leaving aside the fact that the US Constitution forbids ex post facto laws at both federal and state level, so such a change could not come into effect until 2024, the Republicans do not have a supermajority in either chamber. The Democratic governor of Michigan therefore can, and undoubtably will, veto any such attempt.
Not that I think the GOP will even try: right now the legislators are probably having a heated argument about exactly who gets the unenviable job of breaking the news that Steiner's offensive didn't take place to the Fuhrer.
I think we have had this one before (and I had a feisty debate with @SirNorfolkPassmore who disagrees) - the wording from the Supreme Court case in 2000 of Bush and Gore states that state legislatures cannot actually give away that power and so can take it back. So, technically, they can.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Mostly I think Carnyx I've already answered. Brown made Blairism crap though, and stalled the evolution of Labour from their 19th Century roots for perhaps a long while. Burgessian - the electoral evidence for Brown's great standing is pretty limited isn't it?
I would point you to 2010. Labour lost the GE but vote was solid in Scotland and they didn't lose any seats. He is still respected in Scotland and can be represented as a patriot "above politics".
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.
In the sense of the post I wrote, yes. He's a symbol - of reassurance about radicalism for the one and distrust about antisemitism for the other. I'm honestly not seeing what you're getting at.
If I were Cummings or Cain, I'd be really hacked off about this. All they did was leak some disobliging stuff about the PM's fiancé...
According to Ch4 News the implication was that the report was damning but Johnson has chosen not to publish it but instead to show a whitewashed version prepared by one of his lackeys. For those old enough to remember her he's morphing into Maggie in front of our eyes without any of the positive bits.
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
Problem is, that while the Michigan legislature has the right to change the way Electors are appointed, as per the Constitution, the current process whereby the state's Electors are chosen by popular vote is enshrined in state law (as it is in every state). To change this would itself require an act of the legislature. Even leaving aside the fact that the US Constitution forbids ex post facto laws at both federal and state level, so such a change could not come into effect until 2024, the Republicans do not have a supermajority in either chamber. The Democratic governor of Michigan therefore can, and undoubtably will, veto any such attempt.
Not that I think the GOP will even try: right now the legislators are probably having a heated argument about exactly who gets the unenviable job of breaking the news that Steiner's offensive didn't take place to the Fuhrer.
I think we have had this one before (and I had a feisty debate with @SirNorfolkPassmore who disagrees) - the wording from the Supreme Court case in 2000 of Bush and Gore states that state legislatures cannot actually give away that power and so can take it back. So, technically, they can.
Cue reaction......
Yes, absolutely they can take it back whenever they want, but the mechanism is what matters here. Now, if the legislatures had by a simple resolution said that the people of the state appoint the state's electors, you might have a point, but no state did that: AIUI every state has enacted primary legislation to delegate the choice of electors to the people, along with boring details about exactly how the process is to be conducted. That means that if a state legislature wants to change its mind, as the Constitution allows, only primary legislation can effect that change. That means that a) the state governor has to sign the legislation into law, or be overriden by a supermajority in both houses, and b) the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation applies.
The left are absolutely hell bent on stopping Priti Patel from being next PM aren't they.
That's a peculiar and rather revealing observation to the reporting received thus far. Obviously we'll need to see the report for ourselves, but I don't know what 'the left' has to do with her being apparently so clueless she doesnt realise when she is disrespectful and bullying.
Mostly I think Carnyx I've already answered. Brown made Blairism crap though, and stalled the evolution of Labour from their 19th Century roots for perhaps a long while. Burgessian - the electoral evidence for Brown's great standing is pretty limited isn't it?
I would point you to 2010. Labour lost the GE but vote was solid in Scotland and they didn't lose any seats. He is still respected in Scotland and can be represented as a patriot "above politics".
Brown as popular as Blair was in Scotland then, and Cameron not gaining hearts and minds. I don't see the big plus for Brown.
There may of course be some polling on this - not aware of the numbers if there is though.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Looking at the public transport numbers released yesterday, the impact of the second national lockdown is apparent.
Car numbers fell from near 90% of pre-Covid numbers to nearer 70% and last weekend car traffic was at 60% of pre-Covid numbers.
Rail passenger numbers declined from a third of pre-Covid numbers to a quarter and on the London Underground the fall was from 40-45% of pre-Covid numbers prior to lockdown 2.0 to 20-25%.
A fall yes but nowhere near as drastic as in April when rail and tube passenger numbers were roughly 5% of pre-Covid travellers.
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.
In the sense of the post I wrote, yes. He's a symbol - of reassurance about radicalism for the one and distrust about antisemitism for the other. I'm honestly not seeing what you're getting at.
If the price of removing Johnson is ditching Corbyn - would you pay?
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
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
Problem is, that while the Michigan legislature has the right to change the way Electors are appointed, as per the Constitution, the current process whereby the state's Electors are chosen by popular vote is enshrined in state law (as it is in every state). To change this would itself require an act of the legislature. Even leaving aside the fact that the US Constitution forbids ex post facto laws at both federal and state level, so such a change could not come into effect until 2024, the Republicans do not have a supermajority in either chamber. The Democratic governor of Michigan therefore can, and undoubtably will, veto any such attempt.
Not that I think the GOP will even try: right now the legislators are probably having a heated argument about exactly who gets the unenviable job of breaking the news that Steiner's offensive didn't take place to the Fuhrer.
I think we have had this one before (and I had a feisty debate with @SirNorfolkPassmore who disagrees) - the wording from the Supreme Court case in 2000 of Bush and Gore states that state legislatures cannot actually give away that power and so can take it back. So, technically, they can.
Cue reaction......
They can change how future electors are chosen, but they can't change it between the election and now. Because doing so would break the Constitution's ban on post how law making.
All you can afford. Then half again when you realise you need someone competent to clean up the mess.
I've learnt from experience there's no problem a Consultant can't solve as long as the client is prepared to pay a shedload of money.
Watching two or three Consultants gouge themselves on the carcass of a Council is far from enlightening but unfortunately we have too many Council leaders who trust overpaid consultants rather than their own officers.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
I would agree to indy 2 subject to a confirmation vote once the terms are apparent
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
I would agree to indy 2 subject to a confirmation vote once the terms are apparent
You were happy not to have that for Brexit, surely?
All you can afford. Then half again when you realise you need someone competent to clean up the mess.
I've learnt from experience there's no problem a Consultant can't solve as long as the client is prepared to pay a shedload of money.
Watching two or three Consultants gouge themselves on the carcass of a Council is far from enlightening but unfortunately we have too many Council leaders who trust overpaid consultants rather than their own officers.
It's not that they trust them, it's more that the consultants shield them from blame for failure. That's what makes them worth the money - to the Executives, though not of course to the public.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
I would agree to indy 2 subject to a confirmation vote once the terms are apparent
You were happy not to have that for Brexit, surely?
It would be a good idea, but it's hard to defend for that reason.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
Sturgeon would never call a vote if all the polls showed she was bound to lose and it was her right (not Westminster's) to withhold that vote - and she would do this even if Scots wanted a vote.
It's just realpolitik. No politician will call an epochal plebisicite which they will very likely lose, thus ending their careers.
So cut the cant. Boris is doing what any politician would do, including any Nat. He will drag it out til 2024, then the Nats need the Labour party to win - weakly - and accede to indyref2. That scenario seems quite likely.
"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).
Ah well probably because I dislike him so - I'd probably not have posted otherwise. However even putting my personal contempt for him aside I think he's very poor as a communicator and incapable of inspiring anyone. He's also a bit thick.
Scotland deserves good advocates on both sides should it wish to have another referendum. Those advocates should be concerned with the issue rather than self-aggrandisement.
Thanks - that's interesting. There are times when one wonders whether Mr Brown INTERVENES oout of self-regard, or that of the media. The National had a cartoon strip at one time where he would make random appearance stamping through the Edinburgh city-scape drawn as a Fifer Godzilla.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months until granny has had her shot.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months did granny has had her shot.
Yep. Minimalist Christmas this year. Just the 5 of us and toast the grandparents on Zoom. It is too risky to do much else on current numbers.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
Lots of lockdown twists and turns to come before Christmas.
Do you think Drakeford will try to sneak in another lockdown before Christmas?
I think Boris will put all of England on Tier 2 minimum from 3 Dec so we will have non essential retail, maybe pubs and restaurants but at this stage anything could happen.
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
Problem is, that while the Michigan legislature has the right to change the way Electors are appointed, as per the Constitution, the current process whereby the state's Electors are chosen by popular vote is enshrined in state law (as it is in every state). To change this would itself require an act of the legislature. Even leaving aside the fact that the US Constitution forbids ex post facto laws at both federal and state level, so such a change could not come into effect until 2024, the Republicans do not have a supermajority in either chamber. The Democratic governor of Michigan therefore can, and undoubtably will, veto any such attempt.
Not that I think the GOP will even try: right now the legislators are probably having a heated argument about exactly who gets the unenviable job of breaking the news that Steiner's offensive didn't take place to the Fuhrer.
I think we have had this one before (and I had a feisty debate with @SirNorfolkPassmore who disagrees) - the wording from the Supreme Court case in 2000 of Bush and Gore states that state legislatures cannot actually give away that power and so can take it back. So, technically, they can.
Cue reaction......
Yes, absolutely they can take it back whenever they want, but the mechanism is what matters here. Now, if the legislatures had by a simple resolution said that the people of the state appoint the state's electors, you might have a point, but no state did that: AIUI every state has enacted primary legislation to delegate the choice of electors to the people, along with boring details about exactly how the process is to be conducted. That means that if a state legislature wants to change its mind, as the Constitution allows, only primary legislation can effect that change. That means that a) the state governor has to sign the legislation into law, or be overriden by a supermajority in both houses, and b) the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation applies.
Cheers @rpjs - and @rcs1000 - very useful and informative as ever. Where I’m getting confused is that my understand was that, while the legislatures may have passed this legislation, it was effectively meaningless because the legislatures did not have the authority to delegate the power even if they made a law saying they had.
Northern Ireland going into two week lockdown but schools remaining open
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
I fear the big Christmas relaxation will turn into the a similar disaster to the big summer vacation relaxation.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months did granny has had her shot.
Yep. Minimalist Christmas this year. Just the 5 of us and toast the grandparents on Zoom. It is too risky to do much else on current numbers.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
I honestly don't get it. Yes of course we all want to see loved ones, but one day isn't that important when we know in 2-3 months we will be able to without fear of killing them off.
C4 news focus group of fifteen 2014 No voters on just now; sobering for certain folk I'd imagine.
Oh,. what did they say?
4 would now vote Yes if there was a referendum, another 4 would consider it. Not very enthusiastic about another referendum, but not enthusiastic about BJ telling us whether we're allowed to have one either.
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Quite a few No-voter, anti-Nicola even! People I know loaned their vote to the SNP in 2019 because it was such an awful choice on offer. I assumed they would stay as No-voters who just loaned a vote to the SNP, but they're drifting. When it's brought up they say "well......" and without answering, complain about Boris. I don't know many Enthusiastic No's even though this subset would never be Enthusiastic Pro-Indyref2. I think they can be nudged to Yes, and would need some convincing to be happy to actively vote No. These are older, retired or close-to-retired people, middle to upper-middle class. Classic No types.
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
When it comes to it, if people think Indy will result in higher taxes/reduced services, the current enthusiasm will drain away somewhat. Simples. There really is not much of an answer to questions like the currency and the deficit. Covid and Nicola's management of it is dominating perceptions. Won't be like that for ever.
Idly hypothesising why folk will still vote No in any indy referendum while happily applauding a despised Tory pm for being too cowardly to give Scots the chance to put it to the test is quite a thing.
I would agree to indy 2 subject to a confirmation vote once the terms are apparent
You were happy not to have that for Brexit, surely?
It would be a good idea, but it's hard to defend for that reason.
It certainly smacks of the 4th or 5th moving of the goalposts by the Unionists. Not to mention the attempted sabotage of the 1978 and 1997 referenda. Sujch gerrymandering does not proclaim a righteous confidence in one's cause.
Comments
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/1327601642880053250
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/1739263/will-gordon-browns-devolution-plan-prevent-indyref2/.
I'm still wondering why Omnium doesn't think Mr B fits into the Labour Party, and that is another issue I'd like to know more about.
As for intellect on the left. Where would one look? In the old days you might look at Benn but it is extremely telling that among those he failed to convince about the Left cause is his own son Hilary.
They added that the investigation had found evidence of bullying, even if it had not been intentional.
Another source who saw the report called it "unambiguous in stating that Priti Patel broke the ministerial code and that the prime minister buried it".
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55007122
1. Priti Patel ought to resign, shouldn't she? Unintenionality is no defence, is it?
2. She's going nowhere, is she?
Apart from upsetting Boris, his mate or his bird, is there any resigning offence for this government?
https://news.sky.com/story/priti-patel-bullying-report-finds-she-broke-ministerial-code-sources-12136599
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14
Ian Murray on afterwards flapping his gums about what he knows Scots voters want.
Scotland deserves good advocates on both sides should it wish to have another referendum. Those advocates should be concerned with the issue rather than self-aggrandisement.
The difference between this and the actual EC vote are any “faithless electors”, which are mentioned in the next sentence of the Betfair rules.
They’re not paying out until all 50 states have certified their results.
Now there's a phrase rare enough to cause concern when it does occur, as it means something very weird is going on.
See also the US Democrats, who managed a lot of not-Trump votes at the top, but woefully underperformed down the ticket, thanks to their attachment to the loony left who want to defund the police and call all white people racist.
Not that I think the GOP will even try: right now the legislators are probably having a heated argument about exactly who gets the unenviable job of breaking the news that Steiner's offensive didn't take place to the Fuhrer.
@Burgessian
Mostly I think Carnyx I've already answered. Brown made Blairism crap though, and stalled the evolution of Labour from their 19th Century roots for perhaps a long while.
Burgessian - the electoral evidence for Brown's great standing is pretty limited isn't it?
Oh Brady don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more
Yes is easier to say than No for people, is the sense I'm getting.
Something needs to happen to focus the Unionists. Maybe Vote Leave was never Unionist though. I wonder what Carrie thinks?
Cue reaction......
(let's gloss over the 2 subsequent pish performances from the boys in blue)
https://twitter.com/LostGlasgow/status/1329513210848882689?s=20
There may of course be some polling on this - not aware of the numbers if there is though.
Car numbers fell from near 90% of pre-Covid numbers to nearer 70% and last weekend car traffic was at 60% of pre-Covid numbers.
Rail passenger numbers declined from a third of pre-Covid numbers to a quarter and on the London Underground the fall was from 40-45% of pre-Covid numbers prior to lockdown 2.0 to 20-25%.
A fall yes but nowhere near as drastic as in April when rail and tube passenger numbers were roughly 5% of pre-Covid travellers.
Come on, Daily Star, you know your duty. And if anyone complains, just say that it was unintentional.
Then half again when you realise you need someone competent to clean up the mess.
With the irony that the UK government stumbled on the right strategy and then rejected it.
Watching two or three Consultants gouge themselves on the carcass of a Council is far from enlightening but unfortunately we have too many Council leaders who trust overpaid consultants rather than their own officers.
I think my wife and my decision to advise our family we will have Christmas day on our own rather than 10 of us around the table is the right decision for us and our family, no matter how much the UK and First Ministers try to keep everyone happy and risk real problems in the new year
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1329522503560130567?s=19
It's just realpolitik. No politician will call an epochal plebisicite which they will very likely lose, thus ending their careers.
So cut the cant. Boris is doing what any politician would do, including any Nat. He will drag it out til 2024, then the Nats need the Labour party to win - weakly - and accede to indyref2. That scenario seems quite likely.
With 2, more than likely 3 vaccines basically ready to roll, can't we all just wait a few more months until granny has had her shot.
With Thanksgiving next weekend giving us an indication.
Rishi, Truss and Patel are three I'd be happiest seeing PM.
Do you think Drakeford will try to sneak in another lockdown before Christmas?
I think Boris will put all of England on Tier 2 minimum from 3 Dec so we will have non essential retail, maybe pubs and restaurants but at this stage anything could happen.