I have a proposal. Racing Point need to pay of Vettel and keep Perez.
Perez should get Albon's seat at RBR. They probably just don't want to announce it until the season is over.
I get why Stroll Snr signed Vettel. Made sense at the time. Since then Seb shows no interest in the job and finishes outside the points. And look at how Perez has pushed and pushed and pushed. If you are Stroll Snr surely you have to look at your team for next year and think you've made a big mistake.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
Isobel Hardman: Morale is so low on the Tory benches that it is common to hear former supporters of Johnson complaining that their party has ended up like a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party. One senior MP says: “They are governing like a Corbyn administration would have done.”
It would also help party relations if Johnson made clear that not only is he deeply uncomfortable with some of the decisions he is having to take on Covid, his ministers are too. Steve Baker wants Johnson to rein in his health ministers in particular. He says: “I am deeply alarmed that health ministers are so unabashed about the use of power to make deep incursions into our civil liberties. It’s perfectly possible to accept as I do that liberty must be curtailed to prevent harm to others but to simultaneously have a spirit of humility. I would hope Boris would re-establish in his ministers some Conservative caution about the dramatic use of state power.”
I have a proposal. Racing Point need to pay of Vettel and keep Perez.
Perez should get Albon's seat at RBR. They probably just don't want to announce it until the season is over.
I get why Stroll Snr signed Vettel. Made sense at the time. Since then Seb shows no interest in the job and finishes outside the points. And look at how Perez has pushed and pushed and pushed. If you are Stroll Snr surely you have to look at your team for next year and think you've made a big mistake.
I guess they just have to hope that Vettel becomes interested in driving again after the winter break. As for Perez, I'm sure that he'll get a drive next season. Surely RBR will get him in, Gasly has already signed for AT and Kvyat is a bit rubbish. They also have no need to take the Japanese young driver they have on their books because Honda are leaving F1 anyway. Perez gives Verstappen a rear gunner and gives RBR solid podium and win chances when Max makes a mistake or has issues. It's a no brainer IMO.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
Mr. Max, I'm inclined to agree. I think Red Bull might be feeling they've been too harsh on drivers previously, but right now they'd be foolish to pick Albon over Perez.
Edited extra bit: I did think they'd do that. But after today they may reconsider. And Hulkenberg's another option.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
No. On rare occasions I've listened on the radio I used to then because it's harder to remember just audio information, but I don't if I can get those fancy moving pictures.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
The Federal government participated in it, that does not mean they would have accepted the result if Yes had won.
From what I have been told this current Tory government will not participate in any referendum Sturgeon holds next year even if she wins a majority and it will also urge all Unionists to boycott it and nor will it recognise the result either, it will go even further than Ottawa did toward the stance Madrid took if required
Perhaps a higher percentage of cases are being caught again. Test and trace percentage jumped up significantly this week.
Real case numbers could be falling but if we are catching a higher percentage it may show as a levelling off. Good news still if that's the case though.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
No. On rare occasions I've listened on the radio I used to then because it's harder to remember just audio information, but I don't if I can get those fancy moving pictures.
Cool. The one bit you missed was Russell’s replacement at Williams, Latifi, spinning and losing his wing, which caused a second VSC that turned into a full safety car, which led Mercedes to quickly bring them both in for that double-stack that they so brilliantly f***ed up.
Mr. Sandpit, I did remember that but couldn't recall whether there was a separate VSC or not and decided to omit anything rather than risk being more specific and inaccurate.
McLaren got lucky, sort of, as they could've finished quite a bit lower. Yet, had they not pitted Sainz, they would probably be on the podium and may've won.
Perez from last to 1st reminds me a bit of Button at Canada 2011 (although he was last more than halfway through the race).
This is good news, since Zoe bases its findings on the symptoms its participants are reporting, which are almost in real time, as against the lag that is built into the published test result data.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
The Federal government participated in it, that does not mean they would have accepted the result if Yes had won.
From what I have been told this current Tory government will not participate in any referendum Sturgeon holds next year even if she wins a majority and it will also urge all Unionists to boycott it and nor will it recognise the result either, it will go even further than Ottawa did toward the stance Madrid took if required
Jackboots, eh. Which way will the Black Watch’s bayonets point?
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
Depends if he's thinking about what is best for the union or for himself.
If you want the union to survive then telling Scots "your votes don't matter, we don't care what government you elect" is not ideal.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
Depends if he's thinking about what is best for the union or for himself.
If you want the union to survive then telling Scots "your votes don't matter, we don't care what government you elect" is not ideal.
Point was if he thinks the Union would not survive a referendum, he'll play for time even though that is also unlikely to help, as playing for time at least gives the chance of something else coming up.
I don't support that stance, I've thought for years another referendum is unavoidable, but I can understand the rationale for refusing despite it seeming counter productive.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Mr. Thompson, I think the PM's a selfish prick who doesn't care if his actions have dire consequences so long as they don't happen to, or aren't blamed on, him.
Anyway, I must be off. What a race! And my Sainz bet come off. Huzzah!
Isobel Hardman: Morale is so low on the Tory benches that it is common to hear former supporters of Johnson complaining that their party has ended up like a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party. One senior MP says: “They are governing like a Corbyn administration would have done.”
It would also help party relations if Johnson made clear that not only is he deeply uncomfortable with some of the decisions he is having to take on Covid, his ministers are too. Steve Baker wants Johnson to rein in his health ministers in particular. He says: “I am deeply alarmed that health ministers are so unabashed about the use of power to make deep incursions into our civil liberties. It’s perfectly possible to accept as I do that liberty must be curtailed to prevent harm to others but to simultaneously have a spirit of humility. I would hope Boris would re-establish in his ministers some Conservative caution about the dramatic use of state power.”
Perhaps these Conservative backbenchers should pay more heed to pb. They might have been alerted to Boris running on Corbyn's 2017 platform, or warned before Boris became leader that he was the blue Corbyn, and not just the real Corbyn but Tory Nightmare Stalinist Corbyn, ruthlessly purging internal opponents, illegally proroguing Parliament and abusing the Palace, centralising power to a Downing Street cabal. Will they find jars of Boris's home-made jam in their Christmas stockings?
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
Depends if he's thinking about what is best for the union or for himself.
If you want the union to survive then telling Scots "your votes don't matter, we don't care what government you elect" is not ideal.
Boris Johnson’s priorities are surely Boris, Boris and then Boris. What he decides to do will be what is most advantageous for him at the time. Although, of course, by the time the election is decided, he may have gone.
That's nonsense. The UK isn't going to be a member of the Single Market. It doesn't have to follow Single Market rules if we aren't in the Single Market anymore, that is the very point of leaving. 🤦🏻♂️
If we wanted to follow Single Market rules we may as well have remained members. 🙄
Isobel Hardman: Morale is so low on the Tory benches that it is common to hear former supporters of Johnson complaining that their party has ended up like a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party. One senior MP says: “They are governing like a Corbyn administration would have done.”
It would also help party relations if Johnson made clear that not only is he deeply uncomfortable with some of the decisions he is having to take on Covid, his ministers are too. Steve Baker wants Johnson to rein in his health ministers in particular. He says: “I am deeply alarmed that health ministers are so unabashed about the use of power to make deep incursions into our civil liberties. It’s perfectly possible to accept as I do that liberty must be curtailed to prevent harm to others but to simultaneously have a spirit of humility. I would hope Boris would re-establish in his ministers some Conservative caution about the dramatic use of state power.”
Perhaps these Conservative backbenchers should pay more heed to pb. They might have been alerted to Boris running on Corbyn's 2017 platform, or warned before Boris became leader that he was the blue Corbyn, and not just the real Corbyn but Tory Nightmare Stalinist Corbyn, ruthlessly purging internal opponents, illegally proroguing Parliament and abusing the Palace, centralising power to a Downing Street cabal. Will they find jars of Boris's home-made jam in their Christmas stockings?
Jam might be OK, but what’s the message if they find a manhole cover?
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Isobel Hardman: Morale is so low on the Tory benches that it is common to hear former supporters of Johnson complaining that their party has ended up like a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party. One senior MP says: “They are governing like a Corbyn administration would have done.”
It would also help party relations if Johnson made clear that not only is he deeply uncomfortable with some of the decisions he is having to take on Covid, his ministers are too. Steve Baker wants Johnson to rein in his health ministers in particular. He says: “I am deeply alarmed that health ministers are so unabashed about the use of power to make deep incursions into our civil liberties. It’s perfectly possible to accept as I do that liberty must be curtailed to prevent harm to others but to simultaneously have a spirit of humility. I would hope Boris would re-establish in his ministers some Conservative caution about the dramatic use of state power.”
Perhaps these Conservative backbenchers should pay more heed to pb. They might have been alerted to Boris running on Corbyn's 2017 platform, or warned before Boris became leader that he was the blue Corbyn, and not just the real Corbyn but Tory Nightmare Stalinist Corbyn, ruthlessly purging internal opponents, illegally proroguing Parliament and abusing the Palace, centralising power to a Downing Street cabal. Will they find jars of Boris's home-made jam in their Christmas stockings?
Jam might be OK, but what’s the message if they find a manhole cover?
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
Didn't this vaccine story come up earlier, in that it seems like it would, at worst, take a single plan a week?
I presume you meant “plane”; we do at least have one of those already.
It’s being produced in batches, and needs special temperature control to transport it. Bunging the whole lot inside a military transport plane isn’t going to cut the ice, assuming there is any.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
As it's the most stable border in the world in terms of fixity over time, a village football field aside, it won't be very exciting.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
It’s a long time since I’ve done it, but driving across the A68 border crossing is spectacularly beautiful.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
Entirely sane compromise. Nobody sane would object to that.
Didn't this vaccine story come up earlier, in that it seems like it would, at worst, take a single plan a week?
I presume you meant “plane”; we do at least have one of those already.
It’s being produced in batches, and needs special temperature control to transport it. Bunging the whole lot inside a military transport plane isn’t going to cut the ice, assuming there is any.
I'd always assumed it would come by plane. Much less chance of anything going wrong. Remember that this is being carried in special boxes with dry ice, so no actual refrigeration is required. You might keep the box in a freezer to lower the heat transfer rate but I'd be surprised if there are lorries operating at -70C. Speed is the thing.
I saw the A400M practising landings into Doncaster (Finningley) airport last week (and then Norwich, via Flight Radar). The same plane flew PPE in to Finningley (there's an NHS distribution centre near the M62).
Oh dear, another evening of Tory drivel here again this evening. Having ripped us out of the EU, they now seem determined to break up the UK. That Russian money was pretty well spent wasn´t it? TBH, you go down that road HYFUD you ¤will¤ break the Kingdom. So, why not go and have a lie down and stop spouting such bollix.
I lived in Canada for a while and the reason the confederation stays together is because it is based on clear rules, including the charter of rights and freedoms, a fair division of powers and mutual respect. Scots are now simply pig sick of being patronized and mucked about by a bunch of twattish fifth formers.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
I like your implicit confidence that England won't be in the SM/CU no matter what.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
"British negotiators are instead offering to review the deal in an unspecified number of years to allow the terms of trade to be changed if there is significant divergence."
The unspecified number will be four years. Why? It makes the 2024 election, another get Brexit done election.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
I like your implicit confidence that England won't be in the SM/CU no matter what.
Of course we won't that battle is over. Even the Lib Dems aren't arguing for that anymore.
By the time of the next election we won't just be outside of those, we will increasingly have new trade deals different to EU ones too.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
"British negotiators are instead offering to review the deal in an unspecified number of years to allow the terms of trade to be changed if there is significant divergence."
The unspecified number will be four years. Why? It makes the 2024 election, another get Brexit done election.
I think that relates to the EU punishment beatings should the UK do anything naughty, not the fishing rights.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
"British negotiators are instead offering to review the deal in an unspecified number of years to allow the terms of trade to be changed if there is significant divergence."
The unspecified number will be four years. Why? It makes the 2024 election, another get Brexit done election.
I think that relates to the EU punishment beatings should the UK do anything naughty, not the fishing rights.
Oh dear, another evening of Tory drivel here again this evening. Having ripped us out of the EU, they now seem determined to break up the UK. That Russian money was pretty well spent wasn´t it? TBH, you go down that road HYFUD you ¤will¤ break the Kingdom. So, why not go and have a lie down and stop spouting such bollix.
I lived in Canada for a while and the reason the confederation stays together is because it is based on clear rules, including the charter of rights and freedoms, a fair division of powers and mutual respect. Scots are now simply pig sick of being patronized and mucked about by a bunch of twattish fifth formers.
So are the English. When are the SNP going to set up shop in England?
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
I like your implicit confidence that England won't be in the SM/CU no matter what.
Of course we won't that battle is over. Even the Lib Dems aren't arguing for that anymore.
By the time of the next election we won't just be outside of those, we will increasingly have new trade deals different to EU ones too.
How many parties were arguing that we should leave the EU in 2016? Things can change very quickly.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
"British negotiators are instead offering to review the deal in an unspecified number of years to allow the terms of trade to be changed if there is significant divergence."
The unspecified number will be four years. Why? It makes the 2024 election, another get Brexit done election.
Yes. Forget the last time. This time we really will get it done.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
It rather depends on what happens after the seven years...
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
Entirely sane compromise. Nobody sane would object to that.
Choreographed mutual blink. Like I keep trying to tell everyone.
One covid virus! There's only one covid virus. One covid virus ...
Sorry.
I mean the world leaders it’s gone after: Johnson, Bolsonaro, Trump. You’ve got to hand it to the little feller ...
Shame it’s gone for a bunch of third rate losers who won’t last long anyway.
If it had taken out Xi, Maduro, Putin, Litvinenko, Mnangagwa and Assad, it might have done a decent day’s work to balance out all the other deaths.
But the only really nasty dictator to have got it seems to have been Kim, and to be frank nobody would notice much difference if he did snuff it.
The only country in the world that might do Weekend at Bernie's if he did snuff it.
I was thinking more that most people assume it’s his younger sister who calls the shots. And since she is much fitter, and can shag army generals into submission, if he died it is unlikely her status as éminence grise would change.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
Entirely sane compromise. Nobody sane would object to that.
Choreographed mutual blink. Like I keep trying to tell everyone.
Yeah, this is precisely how negotiations with the EU go when a deadline is involved.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
Entirely sane compromise. Nobody sane would object to that.
Choreographed mutual blink. Like I keep trying to tell everyone.
Or in normal people's parlance a compromise, like I keep saying.
A compromise more on UK terms than the EU's original ones though (keep status quo in perpetuity).
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
On pb.com we will need a long debate on the definition of a border before we can start debating what it looks like.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
Entirely sane compromise. Nobody sane would object to that.
Choreographed mutual blink. Like I keep trying to tell everyone.
Or in normal people's parlance a compromise, like I keep saying.
A compromise more on UK terms than the EU's original ones though (keep status quo in perpetuity).
Impossible. I thought it was only the UK that folded.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
"British negotiators are instead offering to review the deal in an unspecified number of years to allow the terms of trade to be changed if there is significant divergence."
The unspecified number will be four years. Why? It makes the 2024 election, another get Brexit done election.
Could well be. But I don't see the magic working again. A big chunk of the GBD vote were all about the D.
On topic, sort of, I remember reading, more than 60 years ago for high school English class, a short story about an old lady ejected from her church choir on grounds of discordance, bitterly singing loudly across a lake from the church to interfere with their next service.
One covid virus! There's only one covid virus. One covid virus ...
Sorry.
I mean the world leaders it’s gone after: Johnson, Bolsonaro, Trump. You’ve got to hand it to the little feller ...
Shame it’s gone for a bunch of third rate losers who won’t last long anyway.
If it had taken out Xi, Maduro, Putin, Litvinenko, Mnangagwa and Assad, it might have done a decent day’s work to balance out all the other deaths.
But the only really nasty dictator to have got it seems to have been Kim, and to be frank nobody would notice much difference if he did snuff it.
The only country in the world that might do Weekend at Bernie's if he did snuff it.
I was thinking more that most people assume it’s his younger sister who calls the shots. And since she is much fitter, and can shag army generals into submission, if he died it is unlikely her status as éminence grise would change.
Indeed but given their cultural misogyny I can imagine them simply keeping news of his demise quiet for a period of time until a suitable plan is in place. Who needs a new leader immediately if you simply don't admit the old one is dead yet?
Test and trace starting to work? Lateral flow testing finding more cases against a falling number?
Anybody seen information on how the lateral flow tests are being handled? Do they go directly into the numbers, or are positive tests followed up with PCR tests that then go into the numbers? The former would decrease the positivity rate, whereas the latter would increase it.
Test and trace starting to work? Lateral flow testing finding more cases against a falling number?
Anybody seen information on how the lateral flow tests are being handled? Do they go directly into the numbers, or are positive tests followed up with PCR tests that then go into the numbers? The former would decrease the positivity rate, whereas the latter would increase it.
From the gov website:
Daily and cumulative numbers of cases
Number of people with a positive COVID-19 virus test (either lab-reported or lateral flow device) on or up to the specimen date or reporting date (depending on availability).
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
It’s a long time since I’ve done it, but driving across the A68 border crossing is spectacularly beautiful.
It is indeed. And then you come up Lauderdale and over Lammermuir Edge at Soutra down to the Lothian plain.
I had family along that route - can remember the old days before road improvements when there were snow fences along the A68 at Soutra and my father would sniff the air and check the weather forecast before we piled into the Mini and went off visiting the relatives at any time between November and mid-April.
That's nonsense. The UK isn't going to be a member of the Single Market. It doesn't have to follow Single Market rules if we aren't in the Single Market anymore, that is the very point of leaving. 🤦🏻♂️
If we wanted to follow Single Market rules we may as well have remained members. 🙄
That's nonsense. The UK isn't going to be a member of the Single Market. It doesn't have to follow Single Market rules if we aren't in the Single Market anymore, that is the very point of leaving. 🤦🏻♂️
If we wanted to follow Single Market rules we may as well have remained members. 🙄
Peston never was the sharpest knife in the box.
He should have stuck to his previous area of expertise, chemical reagents.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
Entirely sane compromise. Nobody sane would object to that.
Choreographed mutual blink. Like I keep trying to tell everyone.
Or in normal people's parlance a compromise, like I keep saying.
A compromise more on UK terms than the EU's original ones though (keep status quo in perpetuity).
I am a normal person. Tonight I am anyway. Point is, a deal is and always has been a certainty. It's not about "bluffing" and "blinking". People only view it this way because they have more experience of card games or buying a house or doing business deals than they do of macro big ticket geopolitics.
Dr. Deborah Birx warned on Sunday that the escalating coronavirus surge is likely to be the most trying event in U.S. history, as hospital systems around the country strain to combat its mounting daily death toll.
“This is not just the worst public health event. This is the worst event that this country will face, not just from a public health side,” Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, said during a masked appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press."
It's about evens that it beats the Civil War death toll (618,000).
The scale of the disaster unfolding in the USA is massively under appreciated.
The republicans won;t win in 2024 or ever again, no matter who they put up.
The party is now totally divided between the Trump wing and the McCain/Romney rump. The former now loathe the latter more than the democrats for not fighting with Trump against what they see as widespread vote rigging.
Meanwhile Joe Biden is intent on giving up to 20 million illegal immigrants citizenship as one of his first acts. Plus the immigration gates will be re-opened to many millions more.
Wonder who they are going to vote for.
Its over for the republicans. And right wing politics in America.
No, eventually they'll get tired of losing. It took the Tory party 8 years until they made Dave leader.
Nah the numbers are against you. A right wing coalition of any kind will be impossible after team Biden change America's demographics like they intend to.
America today. South Africa one day. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. But it would change the balance of the world enormously.
Why do you assume Hispanic Americans will never vote conservative ? That’s a very odd opinion.
@contrarian, don't despair. This is an interesting piece from the NYT
The point: education more than ethnicity is likely to be the key determinant factor moving forwards. The news there is quite positive from a GOP standpoint: while student enrolment went up well over 40% from 1999 to 2011, it has actually been declining for the past few years and the projections are for a flatlining i.e. down as a % of the population. So, while the Democrats may have been boosted by the 1999-2011 growth, that engine of growth is slowing down.
Also, the values thing is the key. Black and Hispanic voters generally have more conservative values. The shift has already started to the GOP on the Republican side and, for young Black males, it is starting (remember many older Black voters have a very strong affinity to the Democrat party).
FWIW, I don't think that Biden will get 20m illegal immigrants made citizens - part because of the courts, part the Senate (Manchin wouldn't vote for it for a start and the AZ senators may have some qualms) and also because the political benefits may not be so great if illegal immigrants are concentrated in Democrat cities / states and such a measures means the loss of white votes.
One other point. It can be easy to overlook the shifts. Ohio, Iowa and, crucially, Florida are looking like safer Republican bets. Yes, Georgia and Arizona have gone the other way but the Democrats in 2024 are far more stretched in terms of defence - those two states, PA, WI and MI will all require considerable defending. For the Republicans, probably NC is the only one that looks vulnerable (I doubt the Democrats will go big on Texas next time).
Cheering the decline in educational standards for political partisanship is probably a good leading indicator for the decline of a once great empire!
The USA has never really been an Empire, a superpower yes but not an Empire
It’s a good job the people of Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Dakota, Oklahoma and New Mexico weren’t overwhelmed by the imperial outreach of the USA.
Imagine how miserable their lives would have been if they had been conquered, their lands and money seized and their resources ruthlessly exploited while anyone who resisted was shot.
The only one of those which are not part of the present USA is the Phillippines and it was only held for 50 years by the US before being given independence after being part of the Spanish Empire.
To be an Empire you have to have taken control of large numbers of countries and territories which are not part of your home nation
Says who? Says you?
I thought that was a generally accepted definition of an empire? A large territory consisting of vassal states.
So did France not have an empire because they integrated their colonial possessions into France proper?
The French Empire covered most of North Africa, Vietnam, Syria etc it was far larger than the extent of any US overseas possessions ever was and while Algeria may have been incorporated within France, Morocco, Vietnam, Syria etc were not
Oh, so is it only an Empire if the possessions are "overseas"? That rules out the Russian Empire I guess.
Alaska says hello.
Did Russia cease to be an Empire when it sold Alaska?
No, it was a large territory consisting of several distinct peoples ruled by a single authority. As I said earlier, one of the generally accepted definitions of an empire.
"distinct peoples" is arbitrary. Is modern Spain an Empire?
Is England under HYUFD an Empire? He did say how much he apprtoved of General Franco the other day.
No, England is a country, the UK a sovereign country and union
I will remind you of that next time you argue that English Tory MPs should always be allowed to override the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people.
Scots reaffirmed their commitment to the Union in the once in a generation 2014 referendum
Away and play with your spinal pad and pith helmet.
And you know you are losing the argument when you come up with the same old lie about generations.
As far as I'm concerned we are in a new generation now anyway.
1993 to 2020 was a generation of EU membership that faded into history. The last Sindyref under Salmond fell in that EU membership generation.
Now we are entering a new era of post Brexit politics. Nicola Sturgeon can be Picard in the Next Generation referendum.
You are a non Tory, Nat appeaser anyway.
However even Canada did not give Quebec its second independence referendum until 15 years after the first, which means 2029 at the earliest
I'm a democrat, it depends for me what the Scottish voters vote for.
Canada did not "give" Quebec a referendum. 🤦🏻♂️ The Québécois got a referendum when they unilaterally voted to hold one, not when they were "given" one. Had the Québécois voted to hold theirs earlier that would have been their choice, if the Scots choose to hold one that is their choice.
No you aren't always a democrat, not one poll shows most voters want No Deal Brexit but you are still determined they should have it anyway without further consultation
But that is your party policy. And you keep tyelling us party right or wrong.
Party policy in 2019 was actually still to aim for a Deal, I hope we still get a Deal, if the party leadership decides they can no longer agree one that is their decision but I will still argue for a Deal within the party. However I am not going to pretend the decision of the Tory government to pursue a No Deal Brexit will be the democratic will of the majority of the country but we are a representative not a direct democracy and voters can give their verdict on it at the next general election
Exactly - we are not slavishly bound by the results of past referenda or promises. So about time you stopped going on about 2014 and generations and gave the rest of us a break.
We are a representative democracy as I said, the Tories won a majority in 2019 at the UK general election on a platform to deliver Brexit at Westminster, our supreme legislative body.
There was no requirement for the Tories to grant indyref2, if Labour win the 2024 general election and decide to grant indyref2 that is up to them
Since you're so fond of referring to Quebec, the second Quebec referendum happened solely because the Québécois voted for it to happen. Not because the federal Canadians did.
It needed the agreement of the Federal Canadian government too
Oh really? When was that given?
PM Chretien participated in the campaign with a live broadcast to promote Federalism, though he did not say he would accept a Yes vote that is true and a Canadian Supreme Court declaration after the narrow No win declared unilateral secession by Quebec would have been illegal anyway
That's not what you claimed though. You claimed they were "given" a referendum. You claimed it needed the agreement of the Federal government. Neither is true.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
One thing being true in one country doesn't necessarily mean, in a legalistic sense, that it is true in another. Morally is another question.
Of course.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
I think morally a request could be deferred for a time, but once there's the election next year, with the expected outcome, it's just untenable. But from Boris's perspective if it looks like it'd be lost anyway, there's no downside to being unreasonable.
I find it very encouraging that the Scots' appetite for independence hasn't been dimmed by the Brexit difficulties. Whatever the reason, they clearly don't see going it alone as a route to disaster. Even if they intend to join the EU as soon as possible, there will be something of a hiatus to get through.
Good evening, everyone.
I’m fortunate enough to have had a Scottish mother. I’m already gearing up to applying for Scottish and hence European nationality at the earliest possible opportunity.
Can’t wait for the discussion over what the border between Scotland and England looks like, if Scotland were to join the EU.
It’s a long time since I’ve done it, but driving across the A68 border crossing is spectacularly beautiful.
I was there a couple of years ago, as it happens, a day trip to Jedburgh while in Newcastle for a wedding. Lovely part of the world.
No, both sides compromised, as is normal in negotiations. Quite why the going to seven years from UK's three year and EU's ten year demand is somehow Boris blinking and not the EU is beyond me.
Entirely sane compromise. Nobody sane would object to that.
Choreographed mutual blink. Like I keep trying to tell everyone.
Yeah, this is precisely how negotiations with the EU go when a deadline is involved.
Comments
Probably way too early for Albon, but right now Perez is a class above him.
It would also help party relations if Johnson made clear that not only is he deeply uncomfortable with some of the decisions he is having to take on Covid, his ministers are too. Steve Baker wants Johnson to rein in his health ministers in particular. He says: “I am deeply alarmed that health ministers are so unabashed about the use of power to make deep incursions into our civil liberties. It’s perfectly possible to accept as I do that liberty must be curtailed to prevent harm to others but to simultaneously have a spirit of humility. I would hope Boris would re-establish in his ministers some Conservative caution about the dramatic use of state power.”
Putting Albon back in the AT makes sense to me.
The referendum was arranged and held by the Quebec governments unilateral choosing. As could potentially a Scottish one.
Edited extra bit: I did think they'd do that. But after today they may reconsider. And Hulkenberg's another option.
We would then see at what level infections maxed out at.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/12/sakhir-post-race-analysis-2020.html
Sure I've missed off certain bits, but got the main beats.
What a cracking race.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
where the number infected is still steadily falling and
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
where it has levelled off.
No. On rare occasions I've listened on the radio I used to then because it's harder to remember just audio information, but I don't if I can get those fancy moving pictures.
From what I have been told this current Tory government will not participate in any referendum Sturgeon holds next year even if she wins a majority and it will also urge all Unionists to boycott it and nor will it recognise the result either, it will go even further than Ottawa did toward the stance Madrid took if required
Perhaps a higher percentage of cases are being caught again. Test and trace percentage jumped up significantly this week.
Real case numbers could be falling but if we are catching a higher percentage it may show as a levelling off. Good news still if that's the case though.
Canadians treated their own citizens with respect and referendums are held when the provinces want to.
Spain treats their citizens with contempt and send batons against people who wish to vote.
I would morally want us to be like the former. HYUFD finds inspiration in the latter.
https://twitter.com/LukePurchon/status/1335671491912937473
McLaren got lucky, sort of, as they could've finished quite a bit lower. Yet, had they not pitted Sainz, they would probably be on the podium and may've won.
Perez from last to 1st reminds me a bit of Button at Canada 2011 (although he was last more than halfway through the race).
If you want the union to survive then telling Scots "your votes don't matter, we don't care what government you elect" is not ideal.
I don't support that stance, I've thought for years another referendum is unavoidable, but I can understand the rationale for refusing despite it seeming counter productive.
Good evening, everyone.
Anyway, I must be off. What a race! And my Sainz bet come off. Huzzah!
If we wanted to follow Single Market rules we may as well have remained members. 🙄
I wonder if an unnamed Administration official is "concerned"
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1335681511857811457
It’s being produced in batches, and needs special temperature control to transport it. Bunging the whole lot inside a military transport plane isn’t going to cut the ice, assuming there is any.
I saw the A400M practising landings into Doncaster (Finningley) airport last week (and then Norwich, via Flight Radar). The same plane flew PPE in to Finningley (there's an NHS distribution centre near the M62).
I lived in Canada for a while and the reason the confederation stays together is because it is based on clear rules, including the charter of rights and freedoms, a fair division of powers and mutual respect. Scots are now simply pig sick of being patronized and mucked about by a bunch of twattish fifth formers.
Sorry.
The unspecified number will be four years. Why? It makes the 2024 election, another get Brexit done election.
By the time of the next election we won't just be outside of those, we will increasingly have new trade deals different to EU ones too.
If it had taken out Xi, Maduro, Putin, Litvinenko, Mnangagwa and Assad, it might have done a decent day’s work to balance out all the other deaths.
But the only really nasty dictator to have got it seems to have been Kim, and to be frank nobody would notice much difference if he did snuff it.
A compromise more on UK terms than the EU's original ones though (keep status quo in perpetuity).
Daily and cumulative numbers of cases
Number of people with a positive COVID-19 virus test (either lab-reported or lateral flow device) on or up to the specimen date or reporting date (depending on availability).
I had family along that route - can remember the old days before road improvements when there were snow fences along the A68 at Soutra and my father would sniff the air and check the weather forecast before we piled into the Mini and went off visiting the relatives at any time between November and mid-April.
Dr. Deborah Birx warned on Sunday that the escalating coronavirus surge is likely to be the most trying event in U.S. history, as hospital systems around the country strain to combat its mounting daily death toll.
“This is not just the worst public health event. This is the worst event that this country will face, not just from a public health side,” Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, said during a masked appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press."
It's about evens that it beats the Civil War death toll (618,000).
The scale of the disaster unfolding in the USA is massively under appreciated.
Me, I mean.