You can see why Scotland has proportionally the highest number of people infected out of the four nations.
Explain why and perhaps you can add why much lower death rate at same time
I already have, also, like many of the Covid-19 deniers, just because you don't die from Covid-19 doesn't mean you're ok after catching it.
You don't need to tell me that, but I have not seen any huge increase in deaths relative to England and it was previously running at 65% in Scotland v England. Must be some reason if more people have had it yet less have died , especially given the crap we get about life spans here and how we are all malnourished , drug addict , alcoholics that die at 50. Sounds contrary.
It's all the Vitamin C in the neep juice which we mainline straight to the radial vein.
Tell him they won't cover it unless he gives an indication of what is about - they're not going to be there to broadcast his every utterance for much longer.
You're probably right, given he's stopped thousands of young American soldiers getting killed, maimed and mentally traumatised in pointless overseas wars.
You say he's prevented thousands of young American soldiers being killed, maimed and mentally traumatised in pointless overseas wars. Trump says "losers".
Reminds me of the Rayner 'Scum' debacle - yes, there was poor behaviour here, but it can be milked too far.
It is good picture editor work though.
Hoots Mon! Priti looks like she got dressed in the dark, but Crivens! Wee Nicola looks so bonnie!
You want to be taken seriously by anyone north of the border? it would help not to sound like someone out of the Broons. Which was dated, seriously dated, when I were a bairn, and that was a long time ago.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
I see. So you expressed your disgust at Mrs May's anti-migrant tone by voting for Nigel Farage.
If he had taken the advice of the scientists and led the campaign against the virus he would have been hailed a hero and won most of the 50 States. Perversely, he chose to deny it and found you can't deny a virus.
He might even have got away with it but for his ill-conceived advice to his supporters to avaoid the mail and just turn up on the day.
I think on balance more stupid than unlucky, but a bit of both.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Well whatever you want to call it, prepare to perform the necessary gymnastics in order to say that Johnson has delivered it. This is my point.
Trump owns 2 out the 3 lowest vote shares for a GOP candidate this millenium.
Since 2000, there have been six Presidential Elections. This means there have been twelve Democrat and Republican vote shares.
I believe the three lowest vote shares in that period are of Trump, McCain and Trump. And, of course, McCain was coming on the back of eight years of Republican government and the Global Financial Crisis.
The problem is that the Republican Party without Trump loses a chunk of its vote. But with him, it motivates the Democrats even more (and it sends a bunch of Republicans home).
Trump owns 2 out the 3 lowest vote shares for a GOP candidate this millenium.
Since 2000, there have been six Presidential Elections. This means there have been twelve Democrat and Republican vote shares.
I believe the three lowest vote shares in that period are of Trump, McCain and Trump. And, of course, McCain was coming on the back of eight years of Republican government and the Global Financial Crisis.
The problem is that the Republican Party without Trump loses a chunk of its vote. But with him, it motivates the Democrats even more (and it sends a bunch of Democrats home).
The three highest vote shares in UK General Elections in that time have been from parties led by...
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
You might both be right about state aid but isn't it at least a little bit possible it means what it says on the tin given government intentions around UKARPA, nationalisation and, well, state aid, even if Boris does not want to draw this to the attention of backbenchers who never read the manifesto?
Makes a change from what we have been used to with Boris and Corbyn, who look like a state all of the time and their handlers crap at making them at least appear to look like they don't need their mums to dress them and pack their lunches.
The CEO of Qantas airline has said that once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, passengers will only be allowed to fly on Qantas flights if they can provide proof they have been vaccinated. Would you support or oppose it if all airlines adopted this policy?
Net support: +54
Strongest opposition in London (but still two thirds in favour), otherwise very broad support across all geographies/demographics.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
As AA Gill so memorably put it - when people sit around and watch, say, Eastenders or Jeremy Kyle, there is no button to press to show that they are watching ironically. They are all counted in the audience figures.
You voted for Farage. Yuck.
Voting for May was yuck too.
And my vote helped make both Farage get kicked out of the European Parliament and May kicked out of Downing Street. Not a bad two for one protest vote.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
We'll see. I am merely an interested observer. FWIW I sense that his loyalty is almost as strong as yours but it's focused differently. Yours is to the Tory Party, his is to Boris Johnson.
I'm not loyal to Boris, just Boris is more my kind of Tory.
I've repeatedly said I oppose Boris on an issue that's come up just this year alone. How many other people accused of loyalism can say the same thing?
Makes a change from what we have been used to with Boris and Corbyn, who look like a state all of the time and their handlers crap at making them at least appear to look like they don't need their mums to dress them and pack their lunches.
In his last few years as Leader Corbyn could on occasion look relatively dapper, certainly next to Boris (who in fairness is not even trying).
Trump owns 2 out the 3 lowest vote shares for a GOP candidate this millenium.
Since 2000, there have been six Presidential Elections. This means there have been twelve Democrat and Republican vote shares.
I believe the three lowest vote shares in that period are of Trump, McCain and Trump. And, of course, McCain was coming on the back of eight years of Republican government and the Global Financial Crisis.
The problem is that the Republican Party without Trump loses a chunk of its vote. But with him, it motivates the Democrats even more (and it sends a bunch of Democrats home).
The three highest vote shares in UK General Elections in that time have been from parties led by...
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Well whatever you want to call it, prepare to perform the necessary gymnastics in order to say that Johnson has delivered it. This is my point.
Only if he does deliver.
Do you understand my priorities? Because I've said them clearly here so it should be easy to objectively measure whether MY priorities are hit or not. What are they?
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
We'll see. I am merely an interested observer. FWIW I sense that his loyalty is almost as strong as yours but it's focused differently. Yours is to the Tory Party, his is to Boris Johnson.
I'm not loyal to Boris, just Boris is more my kind of Tory.
I've repeatedly said I oppose Boris on an issue that's come up just this year alone. How many other people accused of loyalism can say the same thing?
That's THREE admiring mentions of him in the space of one very short post. QED.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
As AA Gill so memorably put it - when people sit around and watch, say, Eastenders or Jeremy Kyle, there is no button to press to show that they are watching ironically. They are all counted in the audience figures.
You voted for Farage. Yuck.
Voting for May was yuck too.
And my vote helped make both Farage get kicked out of the European Parliament and May kicked out of Downing Street. Not a bad two for one protest vote.
May was not an ideal PM (tho still better than the current incompetent incumbent), but she is a fundamentally decent person. Farage is a 21st century fascist. You voted for the latter, rather than a plethora of other alternatives for a protest vote. We will draw our conclusions.
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
Makes a change from what we have been used to with Boris and Corbyn, who look like a state all of the time and their handlers crap at making them at least appear to look like they don't need their mums to dress them and pack their lunches.
In his last few years as Leader Corbyn could on occasion look relatively dapper, certainly next to Boris (who in fairness is not even trying).
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
It's always unwise to assume the future belongs to one side or the other. The Conservatives won four times between 1979 and 1992 and some thought they would never lose but in 1997 they were smashed. Labour won three in a row but lost in 2010 and have been out of a power for a decade.
To pick up your points:
1) There may well be a scramble for Trump's inheritance but that doesn't mean that's where the GOP will end up. While Ivanka is a possibility, the likes of Pence and Donald Trump Junior are probably still too divisive for many of those who once supported the Republicans.
2) I agree Biden needs to work on the Hispanic vote - Trump was able to convince a lot under the radar Biden was a socialist (which he isn't) but Biden did himself no favours in southern Texas with the fracking line. Policy on Cuba will be interesting in the new administration.
3) It's encouraging a new generation of wealthier black Americans feel less tribal - I do agree the Democrats have taken their support for granted.
4) The assumption those without higher education will vote Republican in the future needs to be challenged and I suspect the new Biden administration will seek to re-invigorate education.
5) I suspect Biden isn't too bothered the Democrats didn't sweep the Senate and House. Co-habitation works well for the President and it marginalises the radical voices as well as keeping the moderate Republican happy.
6) Trump did better than Clinton than in some of the deep blue states - we'll have to see about 2022. With a vaccine and improving economy, Biden and the Democrats could be well placed.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
I see. So you expressed your disgust at Mrs May's anti-migrant tone by voting for Nigel Farage.
No.
I was disgusted by both Farage and May and so torn how to vote. Tempted to spoil my ballot.
In the end I lent my vote to the BXP as a protest vote to get rid of May. Because May was PM and Farage was an inconsequential nobody. It also had the nice side effect.of getting rid of Farage too.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Well whatever you want to call it, prepare to perform the necessary gymnastics in order to say that Johnson has delivered it. This is my point.
Only if he does deliver.
Do you understand my priorities? Because I've said them clearly here so it should be easy to objectively measure whether MY priorities are hit or not. What are they?
Yes - you want things that the Government have promised but cannot actually delivery because of international treaties we are party to.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
As AA Gill so memorably put it - when people sit around and watch, say, Eastenders or Jeremy Kyle, there is no button to press to show that they are watching ironically. They are all counted in the audience figures.
You voted for Farage. Yuck.
Voting for May was yuck too.
And my vote helped make both Farage get kicked out of the European Parliament and May kicked out of Downing Street. Not a bad two for one protest vote.
May was not an ideal PM (tho still better than the current incompetent incumbent), but she is a fundamentally decent person. Farage is a 21st century fascist. You voted for the latter, rather than a plethora of other alternatives for a protest vote. We will draw our conclusions.
May is not a fundamentally decent person.
A vote for BXP in 2019 was explicitly not a vote for Farage since it was a vote to get rid of MEPs.
Makes a change from what we have been used to with Boris and Corbyn, who look like a state all of the time and their handlers crap at making them at least appear to look like they don't need their mums to dress them and pack their lunches.
In his last few years as Leader Corbyn could on occasion look relatively dapper, certainly next to Boris (who in fairness is not even trying).
And then he opened his mouth...
Boris won in 2019 by running on Corbyn's 2017 platform, and opposing Cameron and May.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Well whatever you want to call it, prepare to perform the necessary gymnastics in order to say that Johnson has delivered it. This is my point.
Only if he does deliver.
Do you understand my priorities? Because I've said them clearly here so it should be easy to objectively measure whether MY priorities are hit or not. What are they?
Yes - you want things that the Government have promised but cannot actually delivery because of international treaties we are party to.
Trump owns 2 out the 3 lowest vote shares for a GOP candidate this millenium.
Since 2000, there have been six Presidential Elections. This means there have been twelve Democrat and Republican vote shares.
I believe the three lowest vote shares in that period are of Trump, McCain and Trump. And, of course, McCain was coming on the back of eight years of Republican government and the Global Financial Crisis.
The problem is that the Republican Party without Trump loses a chunk of its vote. But with him, it motivates the Democrats even more (and it sends a bunch of Democrats home).
The three highest vote shares in UK General Elections in that time have been from parties led by...
Is it Jo Swinson???
PM Swinson to you
No, I think it's the Maybot, JC and Ol' "Shagger" Johnson
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
It's always unwise to assume the future belongs to one side or the other. The Conservatives won four times between 1979 and 1992 and some thought they would never lose but in 1997 they were smashed. Labour won three in a row but lost in 2010 and have been out of a power for a decade.
To pick up your points:
1) There may well be a scramble for Trump's inheritance but that doesn't mean that's where the GOP will end up. While Ivanka is a possibility, the likes of Pence and Donald Trump Junior are probably still too divisive for many of those who once supported the Republicans.
2) I agree Biden needs to work on the Hispanic vote - Trump was able to convince a lot under the radar Biden was a socialist (which he isn't) but Biden did himself no favours in southern Texas with the fracking line. Policy on Cuba will be interesting in the new administration.
3) It's encouraging a new generation of wealthier black Americans feel less tribal - I do agree the Democrats have taken their support for granted.
4) The assumption those without higher education will vote Republican in the future needs to be challenged and I suspect the new Biden administration will seek to re-invigorate education.
5) I suspect Biden isn't too bothered the Democrats didn't sweep the Senate and House. Co-habitation works well for the President and it marginalises the radical voices as well as keeping the moderate Republican happy.
6) Trump did better than Clinton than in some of the deep blue states - we'll have to see about 2022. With a vaccine and improving economy, Biden and the Democrats could be well placed.
Be careful lumping Hispanics together. It is commonplace now to treat ex-Cubans separately but from Central America come people with different perspectives and fears depending whether they are fleeing left-wing or right-wing regimes.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
I see. So you expressed your disgust at Mrs May's anti-migrant tone by voting for Nigel Farage.
No.
I was disgusted by both Farage and May and so torn how to vote. Tempted to spoil my ballot.
In the end I lent my vote to the BXP as a protest vote to get rid of May. Because May was PM and Farage was an inconsequential nobody. It also had the nice side effect.of getting rid of Farage too.
In my shoes what else should I have done?
I'd have gone barefoot before even putting those shoes on.
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
It's always unwise to assume the future belongs to one side or the other. The Conservatives won four times between 1979 and 1992 and some thought they would never lose but in 1997 they were smashed. Labour won three in a row but lost in 2010 and have been out of a power for a decade.
To pick up your points:
1) There may well be a scramble for Trump's inheritance but that doesn't mean that's where the GOP will end up. While Ivanka is a possibility, the likes of Pence and Donald Trump Junior are probably still too divisive for many of those who once supported the Republicans.
2) I agree Biden needs to work on the Hispanic vote - Trump was able to convince a lot under the radar Biden was a socialist (which he isn't) but Biden did himself no favours in southern Texas with the fracking line. Policy on Cuba will be interesting in the new administration.
3) It's encouraging a new generation of wealthier black Americans feel less tribal - I do agree the Democrats have taken their support for granted.
4) The assumption those without higher education will vote Republican in the future needs to be challenged and I suspect the new Biden administration will seek to re-invigorate education.
5) I suspect Biden isn't too bothered the Democrats didn't sweep the Senate and House. Co-habitation works well for the President and it marginalises the radical voices as well as keeping the moderate Republican happy.
6) Trump did better than Clinton than in some of the deep blue states - we'll have to see about 2022. With a vaccine and improving economy, Biden and the Democrats could be well placed.
Be careful lumping Hispanics together. It is commonplace now to treat ex-Cubans separately but from Central America come people with different perspectives and fears depending whether they are fleeing left-wing or right-wing regimes.
Also. A different perspective depending on whether an individual "Hispanic" is white or black. Which can transcend national identity.
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
I may have overreacted earlier but stuff like this incenses me. There are criminals out there who have got off more lightly. People who have ruined the lives of others.
The tories used to stand up for people like this. Now? nobody does.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Well whatever you want to call it, prepare to perform the necessary gymnastics in order to say that Johnson has delivered it. This is my point.
Only if he does deliver.
Do you understand my priorities? Because I've said them clearly here so it should be easy to objectively measure whether MY priorities are hit or not. What are they?
Yes - you want things that the Government have promised but cannot actually delivery because of international treaties we are party to.
AZ saying they will be able to deliver 20m doses of the vaccine by the end of the year. That's a huge turning point for us, that makes 18.3m people (13.3m AZ and 5m from Pfizer) that can be vaccinated by the end of January if we have the vaccination programme capacity.
That's a huge number of people, I really hope the government have got the distribution of it lined up well.
Doesn't that depend on (a) who the most likely to spread the virus are? (Are they bar staff or doctors?) And (b) what are the relative numbers?
FWIW, I think it would be massively more useful to get doctors, nurses and care home staff vaccinated first, as a single one of those can knock off twenty oldies and spread it around their friends and family.
Yes, as an oldie I must say I agree. I can sit at home working and translating and posting on PB till the cows come home - I last saw another human about 10 days ago, apart from one Sainsbury delivery, and am definitely not infecting anyone. Health and care staff don't have that option. Why are we even considering not doing them first?
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Well whatever you want to call it, prepare to perform the necessary gymnastics in order to say that Johnson has delivered it. This is my point.
Only if he does deliver.
Do you understand my priorities? Because I've said them clearly here so it should be easy to objectively measure whether MY priorities are hit or not. What are they?
Yes - you want things that the Government have promised but cannot actually delivery because of international treaties we are party to.
Such as?
Internal Market Act, State Aid to name 2
If there's a deal I expect the Internal Market Act to be set aside as redundant.
State aid I don't want international laws broken. I have specifically and repeatedly said I want standard international style LPF restrictions. Call it Canada style.
Doesn't that depend on (a) who the most likely to spread the virus are? (Are they bar staff or doctors?) And (b) what are the relative numbers?
FWIW, I think it would be massively more useful to get doctors, nurses and care home staff vaccinated first, as a single one of those can knock off twenty oldies and spread it around their friends and family.
Yes, as an oldie I must say I agree. I can sit at home working and translating and posting on PB till the cows come home - I last saw another human about 10 days ago, apart from one Sainsbury delivery, and am definitely not infecting anyone. Health and care staff don't have that option. Why are we even considering not doing them first?
If "Neither" is an option why isn't "Both"? And why isn't "Those of the elderly/vulnerable who volunteer for it" in the mix, so as to skip oldies like you but cater for those who don't get on with lockdown as well as you do?
Doesn't that depend on (a) who the most likely to spread the virus are? (Are they bar staff or doctors?) And (b) what are the relative numbers?
FWIW, I think it would be massively more useful to get doctors, nurses and care home staff vaccinated first, as a single one of those can knock off twenty oldies and spread it around their friends and family.
Yes, as an oldie I must say I agree. I can sit at home working and translating and posting on PB till the cows come home - I last saw another human about 10 days ago, apart from one Sainsbury delivery, and am definitely not infecting anyone. Health and care staff don't have that option. Why are we even considering not doing them first?
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
I may have overreacted earlier but stuff like this incenses me. There are criminals out there who have got off more lightly. People who have ruined the lives of others.
The tories used to stand up for people like this. Now? nobody does.
I think you'll find the Tories used to be the "law and order" party.
Reminds me of the Rayner 'Scum' debacle - yes, there was poor behaviour here, but it can be milked too far.
It is good picture editor work though.
Hoots Mon! Priti looks like she got dressed in the dark, but Crivens! Wee Nicola looks so bonnie!
You want to be taken seriously by anyone north of the border? it would help not to sound like someone out of the Broons. Which was dated, seriously dated, when I were a bairn, and that was a long time ago.
In with a shout for 2nd reserve for Sturgeon impressions on Spitting Image though.
"Queues of trucks stretching for five miles unexpectedly built up in Kent on Tuesday after the French started a trial of post-Brexit checks in Calais."
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
Doesn't that depend on (a) who the most likely to spread the virus are? (Are they bar staff or doctors?) And (b) what are the relative numbers?
FWIW, I think it would be massively more useful to get doctors, nurses and care home staff vaccinated first, as a single one of those can knock off twenty oldies and spread it around their friends and family.
Yes, as an oldie I must say I agree. I can sit at home working and translating and posting on PB till the cows come home - I last saw another human about 10 days ago, apart from one Sainsbury delivery, and am definitely not infecting anyone. Health and care staff don't have that option. Why are we even considering not doing them first?
If "Neither" is an option why isn't "Both"? And why isn't "Those of the elderly/vulnerable who volunteer for it" in the mix, so as to skip oldies like you but cater for those who don't get on with lockdown as well as you do?
Yougov need to employ me as a questions editor.
Yes, I'd hope it would spread out to that group quickly (and I agree with you that polls tend to divide us unhelpfully into two camps), though I suppose that logistically it's easiest to do all of one group and then move on. Philip says it's been decided that health/care workers will be done first - is that right? I saw the various groups identified in the Government announcement, but thought it said that priorities had not yet been decided?
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
I may have overreacted earlier but stuff like this incenses me. There are criminals out there who have got off more lightly. People who have ruined the lives of others.
The tories used to stand up for people like this. Now? nobody does.
I think you'll find the Tories used to be the "law and order" party.
No party that employed Cummings or Patel can be considered to be in favour of law and order.
"Queues of trucks stretching for five miles unexpectedly built up in Kent on Tuesday after the French started a trial of post-Brexit checks in Calais."
One source said the dry run caused delays because the French had not deployed enough staff needed for a live operation and once properly resourced more lanes would be open to help ease the congestion.
I'd be on the dems big time for the Georgia run-offs.
The republican party is going to crack like a nut.
Like a "nut" is very apt.
Yeah well I was thinking watermelon...but that would have been more apt for the greens.....
The Trumpistas are furious with the RINOS for not fighting. That much I do know.
I wonder what the split is of his vote between trad Republican partisans and Trumpers. This is important for assessing how things will pan out over the next 4 years. My sense is that right now he has about 25m who are loyal to him and his brand. It's a lot. But I see it dwindling once he and the clan lose the trappings of the presidency. We've had peak Trump, I think.
Good question but I reckon its probably more. Trump got more votes than any pretty much any republican.
Its just that Biden also got far more votes than Obama.
The repubs could go back to a Romney/McCain type, but they just lose by more.
Looking at the numbers, the repubs don't win again. Ever.
America? One party state now.
I doubt it @contrarian, I think, if the States is going to be one party, it will be the Republicans in charge, really for several reasons:
1. Trump has, in effect, emasculated the whole Romney / McCain types in the GOP. Beyond the Trumpers, there are plenty who are unhappy with the likes of The Lincoln Project and even more who recognise that the coalition he built has real electoral legs. The end result is the Republican party is far more united than the Democrats. Biden's picks so far are centrist. While the Left does not have that many Congressional seats, it has provided a lot of the power on the ground in terms of voter activation.
2. The Democrats face significant secular problems regarding the Hispanic block, which is not just limited to Florida or southern Texas. There is a big fight brewing in California at the moment over Harris' appointment with both the Black and the Hispanic caucuses demanding their candidate be selected. If it is a Black candidate is selected, expect the Hispanic caucus to be upset. Note also immigration reform / DACA is not the slam dunk for the Democrats it was assumed;
3. Less commented on has been the 18% of Black men who (apparently) voted for Trump. Given older Black voters were unlikely to switch because of historical resonance / souls to the polls etc etc, that probably means a decent chunk of younger Black men went for Trump.
4. Higher Education enrolment is declining (mid single digits probably this year) and has been declining for a few years with stagnation before that. Given education is a defining feature of likely vote intention, that growth engine is less powerful than it was;
5. The Republicans kept state legislatures, which mean they have a big advantage going into 2022 Congressional elections. Down party election results also generally favoured them as well. That gives a big advantage.
6. Many Republicans generally believe the silver lining around the fraud claims is that procedures will be tightened for the next elections. The complaints re mail-in ballots in 2020 largely mirror those in California in 2018 when the Republicans lost a number of House seats where they had comfortable majorities on the night which were then whittled away by mail in ballots. There is a view the focus from 2018 may have acted as a deterrent for 2020. Worth noting, of the 10 seats the Republicans have picked up so far, 3 have been in California, with a fourth one possible.
I`ve been laying Trump - big - well before Covid was heard of. I was confident that Trump was toast. However, the dust having settled, I admit that I was wrong. Trump would have won if it wasn`t for Covid. My bets have come in but I was lucky.
The decisive factor was the increased use of postal voting due to Covid. I`m not for a moment suggesting fraud, just that postal voting increased the turnout and benefited the Dems deferentially. (Plus, maybe, a higher proportion of Trump voters died from Covid.)
What about future elections? It all depends on postal voting going back to previous rules. If 2020 was a one-off, and the methodology of voting returns to normal, then I expect the Republicans to bounce back next time assuming that have a half-sharp candidate. Especially if Biden become beholden to any sort of BLM or woke agenda from that wing of his party.
I hate to say it but Trump was unlucky.
Not a theory I want to accept - and I don't - but it is definitely possible. It was closer than I thought it'd be so would he have won without Covid? Maybe. Thankfully we'll never know. I don't want to think about it too much tbh. Be like dwelling on that lorry that nearly ploughed into me on the M25 that time. Technical objection though. I would not say unlucky. I'd more say that if he somehow got through his 4 years without a big, high viz crisis coming along to expose him, that would have made him a very fortunate orange-hued wannabe fascist indeed.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Well whatever you want to call it, prepare to perform the necessary gymnastics in order to say that Johnson has delivered it. This is my point.
Only if he does deliver.
Do you understand my priorities? Because I've said them clearly here so it should be easy to objectively measure whether MY priorities are hit or not. What are they?
Yes - you want things that the Government have promised but cannot actually delivery because of international treaties we are party to.
Such as?
Internal Market Act, State Aid to name 2
If there's a deal I expect the Internal Market Act to be set aside as redundant.
State aid I don't want international laws broken. I have specifically and repeatedly said I want standard international style LPF restrictions. Call it Canada style.
Breaking international law was what we all voted for. Why don't you respect the referendum?
"Queues of trucks stretching for five miles unexpectedly built up in Kent on Tuesday after the French started a trial of post-Brexit checks in Calais."
Rough if you're an illegal emigrant. (Are there such people?)
If my USP on this site had been telling people that they were letting their personal hatred of a candidate cloud their betting judgement I surely wouldn't be spending my time now after my horse lost expressing disbelief about the winner due to my personal dislike of them.
I warned on here, weeks and weeks ago, that this would be what happened once ministers had got a taste for testing and spending every day poring over healths stats and death rates.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Believing that an FTA should be between equal partners with a neutral ISDS etc is not a "purists" viewpoint.
Well whatever you want to call it, prepare to perform the necessary gymnastics in order to say that Johnson has delivered it. This is my point.
Only if he does deliver.
Do you understand my priorities? Because I've said them clearly here so it should be easy to objectively measure whether MY priorities are hit or not. What are they?
I do. I get you completely. I read everyone's posts on here and there are plenty of very clearly expressed ones from you. So of course I understand your Brexit wants and needs. You are looking for us to take back control of our laws, borders and money. Plus our fish.
"Queues of trucks stretching for five miles unexpectedly built up in Kent on Tuesday after the French started a trial of post-Brexit checks in Calais."
One source said the dry run caused delays because the French had not deployed enough staff needed for a live operation and once properly resourced more lanes would be open to help ease the congestion.
I warned on here, weeks and weeks ago, that this would be what happened once ministers had got a taste for testing and spending every day poring over healths stats and death rates.
Headline not borne out by body. He said nothing about colds nor mass-testing, he said go to the doctor if you have flu like symptoms which has always been good advice..
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
I may have overreacted earlier but stuff like this incenses me. There are criminals out there who have got off more lightly. People who have ruined the lives of others.
The tories used to stand up for people like this. Now? nobody does.
I think you'll find the Tories used to be the "law and order" party.
No party that employed Cummings or Patel can be considered to be in favour of law and order.
The Tory party hasn't employed either of them.
Beyond the technicality though Cummings is/was clearly a loose cannon. Patel, despite her clear personal failings, is perhaps a decent Home Secretary.
A short Asian woman is a clear change from the past. Theresa May was a, (tall) rather intimidating, white, Anglo-Saxon, woman.
Patel will clearly be (mostly) judged on how she does her job. I think she's doing quite well, and I think she'll improve. I somewhat vaguely think she may be next PM, but I'm very sure she's doing great things for our perceptions as to prejudices with every minute that she serves.
"Queues of trucks stretching for five miles unexpectedly built up in Kent on Tuesday after the French started a trial of post-Brexit checks in Calais."
One source said the dry run caused delays because the French had not deployed enough staff needed for a live operation and once properly resourced more lanes would be open to help ease the congestion.
If the No Deal diehards refuse to even accept a Canada style FTA they can sod off to Farage as far as I am concerned and never come back!!
Well said.
But what if that (no deal) becomes Cons Party policy and/or is enacted. Where would that leave your relationship with the Party?
I would still stay in the party and argue for a Deal, I am obviously not going to go off to Farage either way am I!
You swallowed Brexit although you believed that the wellbeing of the UK was best served by staying in the EU. You now say that if the Party said it wanted no deal you would stay when you believe that it would be very bad for your country.
So at what point would you think that the Party had moved too far from your beliefs, and was inflicting too much harm on the country you love, such that you would, in all good faith, no longer be able to remain a member of it?
I believe he draws the line in recognising that Scots have a right to national self-determination like Cameron and Thatcher said. If the Tory leader won't send in jackboots to squash the rebellious Scots then that is his deal breaker.
Preserving the Union at all costs is a pivotal part of being a Tory, backing a No Deal Brexit as opposed to simply respecting the Brexit vote is not, just another reason why you are not and never will be a Tory.
2014 was a once in generation referendum and the Scots voted to stay in the UK and that should be respected
Yebbut wanting to leave the EU is a pivotal part of being a Tory in today's party. Boris even made every would be MP swear as such.
Respecting the Leave vote yes, the Tory manifesto also set out the Brexit deal with the EU they were aiming for, only Farage's party in 2019 was pushing No Deal
Indeed. Reclaim laws and money being the first thing that the manifesto said.
If the EU wants to control our laws and money and won't give us a deal without that control then it would betray the manifesto to sign up to that deal.
Sod off to Farage then, good riddance and don't come back!!
The Tory manifesto never made any promises on state aid
I couldn't care less about state aid.
I do care about laws and money which is what the manifesto said.
State aid IS about laws and money.
Yes quite. So why were you saying you couldn't care less about State Aid?
Because "State Aid" is normally presumed to mean simply supporting failed companies or state champions.
But it isn't what is being argued about. It is disingenuous completely to call this a debate about state aid, that is not the issue. The whole "level playing field" concept is about controlling our laws and money - if we give a blank cheque to the EU to determine if something breaches the "level playing field" and they are the sole arbiters of it using their court then that would mean we do not control our laws and money except at their bidding. That is what makes this such a nebulous and fraught discussion that is occuring.
That is the purists view, yes. Which you will need to come away from in order to support the deal. Hopefully you're doing some mental prep for that.
Indeed, otherwise he can go back to voting for Farage as he did last May
I never voted for Farage. I dislike Farage and he is irrelevant and immaterial.
You voted Brexit Party last May in the European elections under their leader Farage, you voted for Farage
A protest vote against Theresa "GO HOME" May, there were no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
As AA Gill so memorably put it - when people sit around and watch, say, Eastenders or Jeremy Kyle, there is no button to press to show that they are watching ironically. They are all counted in the audience figures.
You voted for Farage. Yuck.
Voting for May was yuck too.
And my vote helped make both Farage get kicked out of the European Parliament and May kicked out of Downing Street. Not a bad two for one protest vote.
May was not an ideal PM (tho still better than the current incompetent incumbent), but she is a fundamentally decent person. Farage is a 21st century fascist. You voted for the latter, rather than a plethora of other alternatives for a protest vote. We will draw our conclusions.
He voted and others for the Brexit Party in a Euro election to an inconsequential talking shop, specifically in order to force a change in the person leading the UK Government.
Had he and others not done so, and the Conservative Party had collapsed as May fought and lost a second general election in the midst of a mass defection by her electorate, then it is quite possible that Farage in his emerging guise as your 21st century fascist would be sitting there now leading a party with growing support and perhaps 100 or more seats in another hung UK parliament that a year on was still as deadlocked as the last. A bit like Weimar Germany after a party emerged from nowhere in the 1930 federal election, and look where that led.
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
I may have overreacted earlier but stuff like this incenses me. There are criminals out there who have got off more lightly. People who have ruined the lives of others.
The tories used to stand up for people like this. Now? nobody does.
I think you'll find the Tories used to be the "law and order" party.
No party that employed Cummings or Patel can be considered to be in favour of law and order.
The Tory party hasn't employed either of them.
Beyond the technicality though Cummings is/was clearly a loose cannon. Patel, despite her clear personal failings, is perhaps a decent Home Secretary.
A short Asian woman is a clear change from the past. Theresa May was a, (tall) rather intimidating, white, Anglo-Saxon, woman.
Patel will clearly be (mostly) judged on how she does her job. I think she's doing quite well, and I think she'll improve. I somewhat vaguely think she may be next PM, but I'm very sure she's doing great things for our perceptions as to prejudices with every minute that she serves.
Actually they have, I remember when Priti Patel used to be Press Secretary to William Hague and Cummings used to work for Gove when Gove was in opposition.
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
I may have overreacted earlier but stuff like this incenses me. There are criminals out there who have got off more lightly. People who have ruined the lives of others.
The tories used to stand up for people like this. Now? nobody does.
I think you'll find the Tories used to be the "law and order" party.
No party that employed Cummings or Patel can be considered to be in favour of law and order.
The Tory party hasn't employed either of them.
Beyond the technicality though Cummings is/was clearly a loose cannon. Patel, despite her clear personal failings, is perhaps a decent Home Secretary.
A short Asian woman is a clear change from the past. Theresa May was a, (tall) rather intimidating, white, Anglo-Saxon, woman.
Patel will clearly be (mostly) judged on how she does her job. I think she's doing quite well, and I think she'll improve. I somewhat vaguely think she may be next PM, but I'm very sure she's doing great things for our perceptions as to prejudices with every minute that she serves.
To take it on the narrow technicality - are you sure Cummings has not been employed by the Tory party? I know in his most recent role he was paid by the government, but I think he was previously a policy wonk for Michael Gove under the pay of central office (although I could be wrong).
Comments
'I hate to say it but Trump was unlucky.'
He was - and stupid too.
If he had taken the advice of the scientists and led the campaign against the virus he would have been hailed a hero and won most of the 50 States. Perversely, he chose to deny it and found you can't deny a virus.
He might even have got away with it but for his ill-conceived advice to his supporters to avaoid the mail and just turn up on the day.
I think on balance more stupid than unlucky, but a bit of both.
I believe the three lowest vote shares in that period are of Trump, McCain and Trump. And, of course, McCain was coming on the back of eight years of Republican government and the Global Financial Crisis.
The problem is that the Republican Party without Trump loses a chunk of its vote. But with him, it motivates the Democrats even more (and it sends a bunch of Republicans home).
https://twitter.com/RandyRRQuaid/status/1327043884082409474
The CEO of Qantas airline has said that once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, passengers will only be allowed to fly on Qantas flights if they can provide proof they have been vaccinated. Would you support or oppose it if all airlines adopted this policy?
Net support: +54
Strongest opposition in London (but still two thirds in favour), otherwise very broad support across all geographies/demographics.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2020/11/24/a8e1c/3
And my vote helped make both Farage get kicked out of the European Parliament and May kicked out of Downing Street. Not a bad two for one protest vote.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/23/2020-election-results-almost-no-trump-voters-consider-biden-the-winner.html
I've repeatedly said I oppose Boris on an issue that's come up just this year alone. How many other people accused of loyalism can say the same thing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-55057700
Do you understand my priorities? Because I've said them clearly here so it should be easy to objectively measure whether MY priorities are hit or not. What are they?
Seriously, if it was about taking a stand in refusing to follow restrictions or pay the fines for doing that it'd be one thing, but because she seems to genuinely believe her justification for doing so it really undermines itself as a protest against state power.
To pick up your points:
1) There may well be a scramble for Trump's inheritance but that doesn't mean that's where the GOP will end up. While Ivanka is a possibility, the likes of Pence and Donald Trump Junior are probably still too divisive for many of those who once supported the Republicans.
2) I agree Biden needs to work on the Hispanic vote - Trump was able to convince a lot under the radar Biden was a socialist (which he isn't) but Biden did himself no favours in southern Texas with the fracking line. Policy on Cuba will be interesting in the new administration.
3) It's encouraging a new generation of wealthier black Americans feel less tribal - I do agree the Democrats have taken their support for granted.
4) The assumption those without higher education will vote Republican in the future needs to be challenged and I suspect the new Biden administration will seek to re-invigorate education.
5) I suspect Biden isn't too bothered the Democrats didn't sweep the Senate and House. Co-habitation works well for the President and it marginalises the radical voices as well as keeping the moderate Republican happy.
6) Trump did better than Clinton than in some of the deep blue states - we'll have to see about 2022. With a vaccine and improving economy, Biden and the Democrats could be well placed.
Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.03
Democrats 1.03
Biden PV 1.02
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.03
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.03
Trump ECV 210-239 1.04
Biden ECV 300-329 1.04
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.02
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.05
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.02
AZ Dem 1.02
GA Dem 1.03
MI Dem 1.02
NV Dem 1.03
PA Dem 1.02
WI Dem 1.03
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.09
Trump exit date 2021 1.06
I was disgusted by both Farage and May and so torn how to vote. Tempted to spoil my ballot.
In the end I lent my vote to the BXP as a protest vote to get rid of May. Because May was PM and Farage was an inconsequential nobody. It also had the nice side effect.of getting rid of Farage too.
In my shoes what else should I have done?
A vote for BXP in 2019 was explicitly not a vote for Farage since it was a vote to get rid of MEPs.
No, I think it's the Maybot, JC and Ol' "Shagger" Johnson
#BlueRinseMatters
The tories used to stand up for people like this. Now? nobody does.
That's a huge number of people, I really hope the government have got the distribution of it lined up well.
State aid I don't want international laws broken. I have specifically and repeatedly said I want standard international style LPF restrictions. Call it Canada style.
Yougov need to employ me as a questions editor.
"Queues of trucks stretching for five miles unexpectedly built up in Kent on Tuesday after the French started a trial of post-Brexit checks in Calais."
Now Hancock wants mass-testing for the common COLD - even after covid
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8981739/Matt-Hancock-claims-Tier-Three-restrictions-lockdown-werent-tough-enough.html
Beyond the technicality though Cummings is/was clearly a loose cannon. Patel, despite her clear personal failings, is perhaps a decent Home Secretary.
A short Asian woman is a clear change from the past. Theresa May was a, (tall) rather intimidating, white, Anglo-Saxon, woman.
Patel will clearly be (mostly) judged on how she does her job. I think she's doing quite well, and I think she'll improve. I somewhat vaguely think she may be next PM, but I'm very sure she's doing great things for our perceptions as to prejudices with every minute that she serves.
The Sentinal, I think was the starting point.
Had he and others not done so, and the Conservative Party had collapsed as May fought and lost a second general election in the midst of a mass defection by her electorate, then it is quite possible that Farage in his emerging guise as your 21st century fascist would be sitting there now leading a party with growing support and perhaps 100 or more seats in another hung UK parliament that a year on was still as deadlocked as the last. A bit like Weimar Germany after a party emerged from nowhere in the 1930 federal election, and look where that led.
https://www.cntraveler.com/story/after-a-decade-of-delays-this-airport-was-completed-during-covid-19#intcid=_cnt-verso-bottom-recirc_7499ec4f-171e-4144-a542-d514c4297a3a_text2vec1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfe8tCcHnKY
Which is a joy because Mr Meeks earwormed me this morning with some Europop that I had repressed.