My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
No, as 2/3 of Tory MPs would still have voted for a Deal, as would his most likely replacement Rishi Sunak, so he would survive any confidence vote
Sunak? Keep up, Liz Truss is the future!
She's no Benny Hill, though, and Sunak even less so. Neither can be visualized chasing housewives on a milk float.
I think you're onto something with that btw. No kidding.
Have you not noticed the Fred Scuttle salute, gait, posture, clothing fit, and hair?
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.
Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.
It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
They've done what they needed to - remove any obstacle to preventing No Deal. Anything Boris does or doesn't come up with is entirely down to him now.
And abstention on an actual deal is a secondary matter politically.
Yep. Agreed. But there's something bigger at stake here. Nigel, you - YOU! - have gone "Boris" instead of "Johnson".
She was a LD in 1994, she is more a libertarian liberal than a Tory, much like Philip Thompson
She is great. 💯
WAS! (In 1994 as an LD- much like yourself if HYUFD is to be believed).
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
Don't look at me. HYUFD is my eyes and ears for all things Conservative, and he rates us both as unreconstructed, un-repentant former Labour voters. You too are doomed, come the day of his revolution!
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
The Liberal Democrats need to discover the kind of media-grabbing radicalism from the Criminal Justice Act protests era, otherwise they're going to stay invisible. Starmer is beginning to corner a market in soft-tory voters.
@Philip_Thompson if you think the Welsh Government has done a poor job then you would need to concede Johnson has too.
But you won't as a member of his fan club.
I'm not overly critical of the Welsh government - but I don't deny they exist.
I don't claim the Tories aren't in Government. SNP supporters on this site don't claim the SNP aren't in Government. Uniquely only Labour supporters on this site seem to want to deny that a Labour Government within the UK even exists.
I do wonder what about Drakeford's Government makes Labour supporters uniquely so ashamed that Labour in Government even exists? You wouldn't see a Sturgeon supporter denying that she or her Government exists.
I criticised the Welsh Government, now you criticise the Tories as they have cocked up as badly as the Welsh.
But you won't because you're not impartial, so please don't pretend otherwise.
I haven't criticised the Welsh Government have I?
Apart from their mistake of a 2 week firebreak that thankfully was avoided by Westminster, apart from that mistake they've handled the epidemic much the same as every other nation.
Two week firebreak avoided by Westminster, except ours also failed to work.
Two weeks vs four weeks, neither was long enough clearly. You could just say both got it wrong but you cannot.
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
No, as 2/3 of Tory MPs would still have voted for a Deal, as would his most likely replacement Rishi Sunak, so he would survive any confidence vote
Sunak? Keep up, Liz Truss is the future!
She's no Benny Hill, though, and Sunak even less so. Neither can be visualized chasing housewives on a milk float.
I think you're onto something with that btw. No kidding.
Have you not noticed the Fred Scuttle salute, gait, posture, clothing fit, and hair?
Tonight Matthew, I am Benny Hill!
Yep. It was a revelation when I saw your thesis and thought about it. It's spot on. It beats my Jimmy Savile one hands down. That was a stretch and not quite right. Again, for the sake of clarity, I consider this to be a totally serious and extremely insightful political exchange we're having here. No smiley face, note. Because it's no laughing matter. Johnson has tapped into exactly what you're describing - as Hill did - and has gained enormous success on the back of it. As Hill did.
Now I have a quite horrible image in my mind, of Jimmy Savile chasing Barbara Windsor around a garden, with the film speeded up and Yakkety Sax playing in the background!
I quite like that actually. An underrated genre. English slapstick surrealist noir.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
The Liberal Democrats need to discover this kind of media-grabbing radicalism, otherwise they're going to stay invisible. Starmer is beginning to corner a market in soft-tory voters.
People who go for that kind of thing thesedays either like the freedom of doing so as an individual, or are in XR I suspect, which is cooler and more anti authority. Even as a LD they might find themselves in power in local government and having to be a bit more tied down, so even just doing mild stunts is probably out.
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.
Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.
It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
They've done what they needed to - remove any obstacle to preventing No Deal. Anything Boris does or doesn't come up with is entirely down to him now.
And abstention on an actual deal is a secondary matter politically.
Yep. Agreed. But there's something bigger at stake here. Nigel, you - YOU! - have gone "Boris" instead of "Johnson".
That really is one in the solar plexus.
I don't give much of a damn. Whatever you call him, he's crap.
My neighbour (92 yesterday) and his only-slightly younger wife of nearly 70 years have both been for their jabs this morning. They were VERY impressed with the operation - it ran on rails, already. Seems to be a lot of thought has gone into it.
They are delighted with their Christmas present. And relieved.
Anyone know why I`m hearing stories like this yet mum, aged 86 and in a care home, has heard nothing about a vaccination and the care home manager is vaguely saying "sometime in January we think"? (Mum`s in Devon as well, by the way.)
Shout loudly. Someone might hear. If not, you've done all you can.
The Christmas easing is insane, this must go down as Black Wednesday for any Government partaking in it.
I think the school holiday factor is being missed here. We should expect a fair bit of nesting behaviour, and probably a slight reduction in spread as the schools are closed.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
The Liberal Democrats need to discover this kind of media-grabbing radicalism, otherwise they're going to stay invisible. Starmer is beginning to corner a market in soft-tory voters.
That wasn't "media-grabbing radicalism" - I assume that is just a write up in a Lib Dem in-house mag. "Lib Dem Youth & Students hold banner" has never been news, and wouldn't have been covered in the press.
I agree on the need to be more attention-grabbing - but this just isn't a relevant example.
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.
Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.
It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
It’s a genuinely difficult decision for the opposition parties, especially Labour. If Lab abstain, and all other opposition vote against, there could well be enough of a Tory rebellion to vote the deal down.
In theory, yes, but I rate the chances of a Tory rebellion on that scale as very low indeed.
He didn't feel anything because they DIDN'T ACTUALLY GIVE IT TO HIM. Because it ISN'T SAFE....
(And lo, another conspiracy meme was created.....)
If we're memeing, I prefer... ...it cant be bargained with, it cant be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop... EVER, untill you are dead!
@Philip_Thompson if you think the Welsh Government has done a poor job then you would need to concede Johnson has too.
But you won't as a member of his fan club.
I'm not overly critical of the Welsh government - but I don't deny they exist.
I don't claim the Tories aren't in Government. SNP supporters on this site don't claim the SNP aren't in Government. Uniquely only Labour supporters on this site seem to want to deny that a Labour Government within the UK even exists.
I do wonder what about Drakeford's Government makes Labour supporters uniquely so ashamed that Labour in Government even exists? You wouldn't see a Sturgeon supporter denying that she or her Government exists.
I criticised the Welsh Government, now you criticise the Tories as they have cocked up as badly as the Welsh.
But you won't because you're not impartial, so please don't pretend otherwise.
I haven't criticised the Welsh Government have I?
Apart from their mistake of a 2 week firebreak that thankfully was avoided by Westminster, apart from that mistake they've handled the epidemic much the same as every other nation.
Two week firebreak avoided by Westminster, except ours also failed to work.
Two weeks vs four weeks, neither was long enough clearly. You could just say both got it wrong but you cannot.
Another Richard claimed at the time of Johnson's U-turn that Johnson's lockdown was better because it was later and longer, it turns out both English and Welsh lockdowns were significantly flawed.
Nippy's Scotland seems to have a better handle on Covid than any of the other home nations. Is this by luck or judgement?
It does appear Liz Truss now bitterly regrets the right-wing extravagances of her youth and is fully committed to the Johnsonian path to world domination.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
The Liberal Democrats need to discover this kind of media-grabbing radicalism, otherwise they're going to stay invisible. Starmer is beginning to corner a market in soft-tory voters.
People who go for that kind of thing thesedays either like the freedom of doing so as an individual, or are in XR I suspect, which is cooler and more anti authority. Even as a LD they might find themselves in power in local government and having to be a bit more tied down, so even just doing mild stunts is probably out.
Some went off to the Tories and a rightwing libertarian position - there are several rave organisers and subcultural figures from that era who did, like Guido Fawkes - but in my experience many of that background and their offspring are still up for grabs as Green or Liberal Democrat voters. The LD's are just not sufficiently distinctive at the moment, and keystone social-libertarian issues like this have been absolutely to regaining visibility for them since the time of Roy Jenkins, and the 'sixties social revolutions.
Is it necessary to test someone for Covid before giving that person the vaccine?
I assume not, in which case the question becomes: is the vaccine`s efficacy reduced for someone whose system is already battling a covid infection?
I would argue that someone who either has had or currently has COVID would not in theory benefit that much from a vaccine. Unless their immune system is somehow defective, they'll have already - after 3-4 days of infection - engaged their specific/adaptive immune system against COVID and started to produce COVID-specific antibodies and to develop COVID-specific memory T-Cells.
That is what the vaccine does, so I don't see it adding any value to the person either way. If their immune system is functional, they already have or on their way to having antibodies and memory T-Cells. If their immune system failed to react to the actual virus, in all probability it will fail to react to the vaccine.
As always, I stand to be corrected by someone with greater specific knowledge on this issue than me. But that would be the generic response for how the immune system and vaccines work.
Thanks. Makes sense to me. In which case SHOULD individuals be tested for Covid pre-vaccine? By not doing this we risk wasting shitloads of vaccines on individuals who will not benefit.
My neighbour (92 yesterday) and his only-slightly younger wife of nearly 70 years have both been for their jabs this morning. They were VERY impressed with the operation - it ran on rails, already. Seems to be a lot of thought has gone into it.
They are delighted with their Christmas present. And relieved.
Anyone know why I`m hearing stories like this yet mum, aged 86 and in a care home, has heard nothing about a vaccination and the care home manager is vaguely saying "sometime in January we think"? (Mum`s in Devon as well, by the way.)
Because we are at the start of a process and will be patchy in spread so far.
Off-topic but suitable Friday afternoon material. I am reading various legal documents for the House / Commercial unit I am buying in Scotland. They are written in the most fabulous Scottish legalese and because the property is old there is all kinds of fun in here.
They refer back to the original contract between the landowner and the feuars of the village signed 1st September 1896, then a Feu Charter between someone else and the "Union Bank of Scotland" to build their bank on 13th December 1868. Finally the disposal of the various elements of the property and land by Bank of Scotland in the 1990s and last decade. Had to Google "feuar" lol
My neighbour (92 yesterday) and his only-slightly younger wife of nearly 70 years have both been for their jabs this morning. They were VERY impressed with the operation - it ran on rails, already. Seems to be a lot of thought has gone into it.
They are delighted with their Christmas present. And relieved.
Anyone know why I`m hearing stories like this yet mum, aged 86 and in a care home, has heard nothing about a vaccination and the care home manager is vaguely saying "sometime in January we think"? (Mum`s in Devon as well, by the way.)
I'd cut the government and NHS some slack on this - getting 70 million people in the right order at short notice can't be easy. I think they are prioritising (1) people IN hospital already and (2) people in the 80+ who can get to the test centre easily. Those are both very easy to do. Tackling care homes is seen as urgent but non-trivial and I'd think next on the list in practice - January sounds right.
She was a LD in 1994, she is more a libertarian liberal than a Tory, much like Philip Thompson
She is great. 💯
WAS! (In 1994 as an LD- much like yourself if HYUFD is to be believed).
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
Don't look at me. HYUFD is my eyes and ears for all things Conservative, and he rates us both as unreconstructed, un-repentant former Labour voters. You too are doomed, come the day of his revolution!
If HYUFD is your eyes and ears for all things Conservative then I'm guessing @bigjohnowls is your eyes and ears for all things Labour?
HYUFD is an unreconstructed intolerant Blue Corbyn.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
The Liberal Democrats need to discover the kind of media-grabbing radicalism from the Criminal Justice Act protests era, otherwise they're going to stay invisible. Starmer is beginning to corner a market in soft-tory voters.
Sir Ed does know how to take the knee, you think he should do the Starmer Double Special of royal and BLM?
Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.
Just done mine. It says:
"Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"
This is much later that I had hoped.
I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?
As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
Same here. Apres ski has no appeal for me now. And, of course, could never be Covid-safe, with all that closeness and moistness, ahem. Otherwise, skiing is great for staying away from folk.
It`s all about the locations for me, the mountains and the solitude. And I like getting better at skiing.
I`m doing the exercises every day as in the YouTube video: "Improve Your Skiing with Dry Land Training". Plus the gym.
I daren`t book anything for March at the moment - too uncertain, I think.
Absolutely << crucial >> to the LD's for regaining visibility and in their identity, that should say below. ID cards were another very important issue for them like this, which the Tories temporarily piggy-backed off before more common and predictable authoritarian instincts among them number started to re-enter the frame.
Can't help feeling this is getting like the times when churches seemed to think about nothing but sexual issues - married priests, gay priests, divorced priests, etc etc. I'm sure it's important and needs sensitive handling, but not one I'd like to see my party weighing in on massively one way or the other. Starmer was sensibly non-committal when it came up during the leadership election.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
I thought for a moment we still on the Rolling Stones debate. I mused, surely Mandy Smith is older.
Anyway age is no excuse for behaviour. Brandon Barnard, 40, recently executed by Federal Government as an accessory to murder in 2000, aged 19 at the time of the offence.
Executing her for it may be seen as somewhat harsh..
Who? Liz Truss or Mandy Smith. I told you I was confused!
Truss, for being a republican Lib Dem. It was rather treasonous behaviour but I'm prepared to forgive and forget.
I like the sound of the 19 year old Liz Truss, I was not married, sans Children and our ages are not too far apart (at a big push). I could have kept her on the straight and narrow.
The Liberal Democrats need to discover the kind of media-grabbing radicalism from the Criminal Justice Act protests era, otherwise they're going to stay invisible. Starmer is beginning to corner a market in soft-tory voters.
Sir Ed does know how to take the knee, you think he should do the Starmer Double Special of royal and BLM?
That's social identity issues, rather than social/liberal issues. A typical post-1960s liberalism might simultaneously draw attention to child hunger and poverty from town to country, and the victorian disconnection of absurd figures like Rees-Mogg from it, and the government's new carte blanche license-for-crime proposals for the security services, for instance.
Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.
Just done mine. It says:
"Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"
This is much later that I had hoped.
I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?
As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
Saving your stamina for the blacks and the moguls. Sounds like you should be working for the East India Company.
Off-topic but suitable Friday afternoon material. I am reading various legal documents for the House / Commercial unit I am buying in Scotland. They are written in the most fabulous Scottish legalese and because the property is old there is all kinds of fun in here.
They refer back to the original contract between the landowner and the feuars of the village signed 1st September 1896, then a Feu Charter between someone else and the "Union Bank of Scotland" to build their bank on 13th December 1868. Finally the disposal of the various elements of the property and land by Bank of Scotland in the 1990s and last decade. Had to Google "feuar" lol
There's a charming book, notionally science fiction but really a coming-of-age story, The Krugg Syndrome by Angus McAllister, where the intricacies of Scots property law are a major plot point.
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.
Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.
It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
It’s a genuinely difficult decision for the opposition parties, especially Labour. If Lab abstain, and all other opposition vote against, there could well be enough of a Tory rebellion to vote the deal down.
In theory, yes, but I rate the chances of a Tory rebellion on that scale as very low indeed.
It really depends on the LPF and governence part of the deal. To many Conservatives, these issues *are* Brexit, and epitomise the idea that no deal is better than a bad deal.
Don't make the mistake of thinking Starmer is in Government. Covid is an issue that creates hostages to fortune. The vaguer the statement the less problematic it becomes in the future.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Indeed.
If you were to put me on the spot and sum up my philosophy in one of liberal, conservative or socialist I wouldn't hesitate to say liberal.
So in that essence HYUFD has a point in saying that I am not a "true Tory".
But it misses the fact that the "true Tory" party died in the 19th century. The modern Conservative Party has its roots with many a liberal. Lower case liberals have found a home in the Conservative Party since the 19th century and there is a reason their 20th century equivalent party downunder are called the Liberals (while the 'true Tories' there are the junior coalition partner the Nationals).
Politics ceased to be liberals v conservatives before any of us were born.
It is amazing to consider Flynn was, briefly, National Security Advisor, and indeed a senior figure under Obama.
And there he is, apparently seriously suggesting the President order military forces into individual states, whose elections have been upheld by the courts, to make people to vote again at gunpoint (not to mention completely unconstitutionally).
That is a man who - beyond any shadow of a doubt - is horribly compromised in some way. It is inconceivable that he isn't being blackmailed by really heavy characters. Frightening stuff.
Absolutely << crucial >> to the LD's for regaining visibility and in their identity, that should say below. ID cards were another very important issue for them like this, which the Tories temporarily piggy-backed off before more common and predictable authoritarian instincts among them number started to re-enter the frame.
I've said before that the LD's biggest problem is that they are no longer third party in Parliament, so don't get 'called'. SNP are in that position, that's why we get Blackford banging on all the time. Back in the day first Jo Grimond, then Jeremy Thorpe could say something which would grab a headline.... lay down his friends for his life,........... for example. Even Cable...... Stalin to Mr Bean..... had the opportunity to do it. Now??????
Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.
Just done mine. It says:
"Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"
This is much later that I had hoped.
I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?
As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
Saving your stamina for the blacks and the moguls. Sounds like you should be working for the East India Company.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
Truss was until she decided a seat in Parliament was more important.
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.
Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.
It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
They've done what they needed to - remove any obstacle to preventing No Deal. Anything Boris does or doesn't come up with is entirely down to him now.
And abstention on an actual deal is a secondary matter politically.
Yep. Agreed. But there's something bigger at stake here. Nigel, you - YOU! - have gone "Boris" instead of "Johnson".
That really is one in the solar plexus.
I don't give much of a damn. Whatever you call him, he's crap.
Strong and accurate response. And a slip of the tongue condemns no man.
Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.
Just done mine. It says:
"Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"
This is much later that I had hoped.
I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?
As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
For goodness sake keep quiet about the skiing, if @YBarddCwsc hears he'll be spitting blood.
(I went skiing the last two Sundays, if it makes you feel any better.)
Absolutely << crucial >> to the LD's for regaining visibility and in their identity, that should say below. ID cards were another very important issue for them like this, which the Tories temporarily piggy-backed off before more common and predictable authoritarian instincts among them number started to re-enter the frame.
I've said before that the LD's biggest problem is that they are no longer third party in Parliament, so don't get 'called'. SNP are in that position, that's why we get Blackford banging on all the time. Back in the day first Jo Grimond, then Jeremy Thorpe could say something which would grab a headline.... lay down his friends for his life,........... for example. Even Cable...... Stalin to Mr Bean..... had the opportunity to do it. Now??????
What are the LDs for now? Their website still has the 2019 manifesto with its foreword by PMJS wishing to stop Brexit and build a brighter future.
Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.
Just done mine. It says:
"Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"
This is much later that I had hoped.
I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?
As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
Same here. Apres ski has no appeal for me now. And, of course, could never be Covid-safe, with all that closeness and moistness, ahem. Otherwise, skiing is great for staying away from folk.
It`s all about the locations for me, the mountains and the solitude. And I like getting better at skiing.
I`m doing the exercises every day as in the YouTube video: "Improve Your Skiing with Dry Land Training". Plus the gym.
I daren`t book anything for March at the moment - too uncertain, I think.
What about those knees?
Not 100% sure mine would hold up.
Knees are top notch thanks. Like the rest of me! I did my left knee skiing 20 years ago - going too fast, showing off, fell and skis didn`t disengage = anterior cruciate ligament repair. But no issues since the operation at all.
And, of course, I broke my neck skiing almost 2 years ago. Don`t know what happened. My daughter found me 10 metres off the piste in a big dip. They had to helicopter me off the mountain. But I recovered fully quickly, after much physio, and bounced back by going skiing three times last year.
I couldn`t live without skiing. You are missing out.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.
Just done mine. It says:
"Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"
This is much later that I had hoped.
I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?
As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
For goodness sake keep quiet about the skiing, if @YBarddCwsc hears he'll be spitting blood.
(I went skiing the last two Sundays, if it makes you feel any better.)
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
I`m not sure you are being fair to the last three. Need @stodge to adjudicate on that.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
Absolutely << crucial >> to the LD's for regaining visibility and in their identity, that should say below. ID cards were another very important issue for them like this, which the Tories temporarily piggy-backed off before more common and predictable authoritarian instincts among them number started to re-enter the frame.
I've said before that the LD's biggest problem is that they are no longer third party in Parliament, so don't get 'called'. SNP are in that position, that's why we get Blackford banging on all the time. Back in the day first Jo Grimond, then Jeremy Thorpe could say something which would grab a headline.... lay down his friends for his life,........... for example. Even Cable...... Stalin to Mr Bean..... had the opportunity to do it. Now??????
What are the LDs for now? Their website still has the 2019 manifesto with its foreword by PMJS wishing to stop Brexit and build a brighter future.
Is that still the plan?
As I mentioned at the time, Layla Moran would have given much greater media-friendly quotability as a newer younger face. Because of his ties to the coalition, which still put a lot of left of centre voters off, and because Starmer is beginning to attract both left and centre-right voters, Davey needs to do a lot more to grab any attention away from the populist right. He was a very popular choice on PB as a more centre right-friendly figure, but without wanting to say I told you so, I did predict a scenario similar to the current one at the time. He could still turn it round in his tenure, because it's very early on , and he's an intelligent man who's also quite widely respected, but it's going to take a hell of a new approach.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
At the moment IMO the Lib Dems don't know what they want to be; they are rudderless until they decide.
My neighbour (92 yesterday) and his only-slightly younger wife of nearly 70 years have both been for their jabs this morning. They were VERY impressed with the operation - it ran on rails, already. Seems to be a lot of thought has gone into it.
They are delighted with their Christmas present. And relieved.
Anyone know why I`m hearing stories like this yet mum, aged 86 and in a care home, has heard nothing about a vaccination and the care home manager is vaguely saying "sometime in January we think"? (Mum`s in Devon as well, by the way.)
The GP practices being used to dispense the vaccine are fairly spread apart, and the way they seem to be doing it is to have clusters around the hospitals where the virus is. I found a full list for Kent by hunting about on the internet, and both Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone have a batch of vaccination centres each, yet nothing in Tonbridge or Sevenoaks where my mother is. And the way those practices seem to be working is to start with their own elderly patients, before moving onto those registered elsewhere.
The notice given can be only a couple of days - so there is still time before Xmas. But they’ll have to move some to get the over 80s all done this year, and this assumes that they can travel to what can be quite distant centres. In care homes I guess a session will be booked for someone to visit with a batch of vaccine and they’ll all be done at once.
Interesting anecdotal communication by the medical bush telegraph. The new SE covid variety seems to progress more rapidly, so keep an eye on your sats if you get it.
Just done mine. It says:
"Given a vaccination rate of 1,000,000 a week and an uptake of 70.6%, you should expect to receive your vaccine between 12/05/2021 and 03/06/2021"
This is much later that I had hoped.
I could be looking at mid September apparently. Eh, it'll be fine.
Mine is 14/01/2021 to 28/01/2021. That is perfect for my ski holiday to Italy in mid March.
Are you like me: longingly watching skiing videos on YouTube?
As soon as I can get away I`m off. They`ve got to open the slopes first though lol.
I have two trips booked. Italy in March and France in April. I'll be vaccinated by then.
I think it's only 50/50 that the March trip will happen. Skiing is a very socially distanced activity in the fresh air. I don't have the stamina these days for the apres-ski bars which will probably be closed anyway. I save my stamina for the blacks and moguls.
Same here. Apres ski has no appeal for me now. And, of course, could never be Covid-safe, with all that closeness and moistness, ahem. Otherwise, skiing is great for staying away from folk.
It`s all about the locations for me, the mountains and the solitude. And I like getting better at skiing.
I`m doing the exercises every day as in the YouTube video: "Improve Your Skiing with Dry Land Training". Plus the gym.
I daren`t book anything for March at the moment - too uncertain, I think.
What about those knees?
Not 100% sure mine would hold up.
Knees are top notch thanks. Like the rest of me! I did my left knee skiing 20 years ago - going too fast, showing off, fell and skis didn`t disengage = anterior cruciate ligament repair. But no issues since the operation at all.
And, of course, I broke my neck skiing almost 2 years ago. Don`t know what happened. My daughter found me 10 metres off the piste in a big dip. They had to helicopter me off the mountain. But I recovered fully quickly, after much physio, and bounced back by going skiing three times last year.
I couldn`t live without skiing. You are missing out.
Gosh, sounds a close shave. You must love it to return after that. I have been skiing (years ago) and I liked the actual skiing but I found all the "before" business of getting ready and kitted out, then getting up there to where you can start, a bit of a faff, and then the "after" was not quite my scene either. But I get the attraction. It's invigorating when you're whooshing down the snowy mountain. Know a few people who like you are addicted to it.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
At the moment IMO the Lib Dems don't know what they want to be; they are rudderless until they decide.
They have no differentiation from Labour, hence why their voters have gone there.
Of course we hope they will vote tactically in any election.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
I worked and voted for Libs and latterly the LD's (although not so much from 1966 to 1992. After that mine was a 'personality vote' For or against, although I still regarded myself as a LD The five year Coalition was a bad idea, and to my mind, even as a Guardian reader, they haven't really recovered yet.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
I worked and voted for Libs and latterly the LD's (although not so much from 1966 to 1992. After that mine was a 'personality vote' For or against, although I still regarded myself as a LD The five year Coalition was a bad idea, and to my mind, even as a Guardian reader, they haven't really recovered yet.
What's Jo Swinson doing now?
I remember when she was Prime Minister for a while, but haven't heard much from her since.
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
If Labour support the deal, it may well he Starmer's final act as Labour leader.
Labour must support the deal, any deal, if the alternative is "no deal".
I can't see how no deal lasts very long - it simply won't work. The bear trap for Labour is simple. I know that there are (as a local example) plenty of NE voters who support Brexit for the long-term benefits it will bring to Nissan. When Nissan announce it is closing due to Brexit those same Brexit supporting punters will be angry with everyone who lied to them and didn't protect them from the lies.
Saying Labour must vote for a deal that only cuts one leg off as its preferable to cutting off both legs is pretty desperate.
Labour did what it had to in giving Johnson room to negotiate when Starmer responsibly said that they would not vote against a deal.
It's patently obvious that any deal Johnson might arrive at would not be the same as one Starmer might have negotiated. Abstention is entirely appropriate.
I think abstention is the way for Labour because neither voting for nor against works at all. For, and they've dipped their hands in the blood, as it were, and also it can and would be taken as approval of the actual deal. Against, and there's 2 potential charges. It's "trying to stop Brexit", which as we know is poison in many parts of the electorate. Or it's tantamount to voting for No Deal, which is poison in other parts.
It’s a genuinely difficult decision for the opposition parties, especially Labour. If Lab abstain, and all other opposition vote against, there could well be enough of a Tory rebellion to vote the deal down.
In theory, yes, but I rate the chances of a Tory rebellion on that scale as very low indeed.
It really depends on the LPF and governence part of the deal. To many Conservatives, these issues *are* Brexit, and epitomise the idea that no deal is better than a bad deal.
Ok, but my view is that with something to show on Fish, a win on FOM, and the right to diverge from LPF at a price - which is what it will essentially be - the deal will be quite enough "Brexit" for most Leave voters, especially since it's a Johnson deal, and there's almost no chance of Tory MPs not passing it. Johnson has this, politically, I think.
My neighbour (92 yesterday) and his only-slightly younger wife of nearly 70 years have both been for their jabs this morning. They were VERY impressed with the operation - it ran on rails, already. Seems to be a lot of thought has gone into it.
They are delighted with their Christmas present. And relieved.
Anyone know why I`m hearing stories like this yet mum, aged 86 and in a care home, has heard nothing about a vaccination and the care home manager is vaguely saying "sometime in January we think"? (Mum`s in Devon as well, by the way.)
The GP practices being used to dispense the vaccine are fairly spread apart, and the way they seem to be doing it is to have clusters around the hospitals where the virus is. I found a full list for Kent by hunting about on the internet, and both Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone have a batch of vaccination centres each, yet nothing in Tonbridge or Sevenoaks where my mother is. And the way those practices seem to be working is to start with their own elderly patients, before moving onto those registered elsewhere.
The notice given can be only a couple of days - so there is still time before Xmas. But they’ll have to move some to get the over 80s all done this year, and this assumes that they can travel to what can be quite distant centres. In care homes I guess a session will be booked for someone to visit with a batch of vaccine and they’ll all be done at once.
I think they'll have people booked for a time, then the admin staff working the phones to get people who can come straight in to do so to backfill any misses.
At my GP, there are 3-4000 people within a 10-15 minute walk, and if we are all at home under a variety of lockdown they can get hold of most people.
Here I have occasionally had an appointment at a coupe of hours notice from them to me if it was pulling a nurse appointment forward, or a request for a quick consultation.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
At the moment IMO the Lib Dems don't know what they want to be; they are rudderless until they decide.
They have no differentiation from Labour, hence why their voters have gone there.
Of course we hope they will vote tactically in any election.
They have a major differentiation from both the others, I suggest.
One thing in particular on the Lab side - they do not like to be glove puppets for the TUs.
On the Tory side, they are far less relaxed about unfettered markets / business.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
I worked and voted for Libs and latterly the LD's (although not so much from 1966 to 1992. After that mine was a 'personality vote' For or against, although I still regarded myself as a LD The five year Coalition was a bad idea, and to my mind, even as a Guardian reader, they haven't really recovered yet.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
I worked and voted for Libs and latterly the LD's (although not so much from 1966 to 1992. After that mine was a 'personality vote' For or against, although I still regarded myself as a LD The five year Coalition was a bad idea, and to my mind, even as a Guardian reader, they haven't really recovered yet.
What's Jo Swinson doing now?
She is visiting Professor at Cranfield School of Management believe it or not.
My neighbour (92 yesterday) and his only-slightly younger wife of nearly 70 years have both been for their jabs this morning. They were VERY impressed with the operation - it ran on rails, already. Seems to be a lot of thought has gone into it.
They are delighted with their Christmas present. And relieved.
Anyone know why I`m hearing stories like this yet mum, aged 86 and in a care home, has heard nothing about a vaccination and the care home manager is vaguely saying "sometime in January we think"? (Mum`s in Devon as well, by the way.)
The GP practices being used to dispense the vaccine are fairly spread apart, and the way they seem to be doing it is to have clusters around the hospitals where the virus is. I found a full list for Kent by hunting about on the internet, and both Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone have a batch of vaccination centres each, yet nothing in Tonbridge or Sevenoaks where my mother is. And the way those practices seem to be working is to start with their own elderly patients, before moving onto those registered elsewhere.
The notice given can be only a couple of days - so there is still time before Xmas. But they’ll have to move some to get the over 80s all done this year, and this assumes that they can travel to what can be quite distant centres. In care homes I guess a session will be booked for someone to visit with a batch of vaccine and they’ll all be done at once.
I think they'll have people booked for a time, then the admin staff working the phones to get people who can come straight in to do so to backfill any misses.
At my GP, there are 3-4000 people within a 10-15 minute walk, and if we are all at home under a variety of lockdown they can get hold of most people.
Here I have occasionally had an appointment at a coupe of hours notice from them to me if it was pulling a nurse appointment forward, or a request for a quick consultation.
Mid Essex, no appointments, apparently. There's a survey with the vaccine about 15 miles away, but they appear to only be doing their patients.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
I worked and voted for Libs and latterly the LD's (although not so much from 1966 to 1992. After that mine was a 'personality vote' For or against, although I still regarded myself as a LD The five year Coalition was a bad idea, and to my mind, even as a Guardian reader, they haven't really recovered yet.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
I worked and voted for Libs and latterly the LD's (although not so much from 1966 to 1992. After that mine was a 'personality vote' For or against, although I still regarded myself as a LD The five year Coalition was a bad idea, and to my mind, even as a Guardian reader, they haven't really recovered yet.
What's Jo Swinson doing now?
She is visiting Professor at Cranfield School of Management believe it or not.
Or leapt aboard a long rolling bandwagon in order to court the Tory grassroots?
You say that like either is a bad thing.....
I'd say it depends. If she wants less box ticking and more substantive policies to foster racial and gender equality, and also a greater focus on class inequality, it sounds quite promising. But if it turns out to be just railing against the soft and fashionable targets of the more reactionary elements of the Right in order to bolster her appeal with the party, then not so much.
Those look pretty good prices, particularly the Pfizer and moderna.
That's the dose price and for that they've got pretty rubbish delivery timeframes. The opportunity cost of securing small discounts is absolutely huge.
Off-topic but suitable Friday afternoon material. I am reading various legal documents for the House / Commercial unit I am buying in Scotland. They are written in the most fabulous Scottish legalese and because the property is old there is all kinds of fun in here.
They refer back to the original contract between the landowner and the feuars of the village signed 1st September 1896, then a Feu Charter between someone else and the "Union Bank of Scotland" to build their bank on 13th December 1868. Finally the disposal of the various elements of the property and land by Bank of Scotland in the 1990s and last decade. Had to Google "feuar" lol
Old title deeds used to be great fun and contain lots of historical curiosities. These days you get a Land Registration Certificate which is every bit as dull as it sounds. Also in a fit of radicalism the Scottish Parliament abolished the Feudal system a few years ago. Much duller without it.
I once had the title of a Barony in Fife where the fishing grant was by the King and in Latin. Brilliant old document redolent of history, not a series of boxes filled in on a computer.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
Wut, Cable also served in the Coalition and was quite happy to implement wide-scale privatisation and so on
As Stocky says I am curious what @stodge thinks of my characterisation of those three.
Cable served in the Coalition but never seemed comfortable or a good fit for it in my humble opinion. Of all the 2015 LD to Tory gains Twickenham was the one I was most pleased with. While if I lived in the seat of any of the first three I mentioned I could have voted for them.
My prediction: this is theatrics to allow Johnson to claim the EU blinked on fish at the last minute, in order to distract from his compromise on dynamic alignment. Deal close to nailed on.
The problem is that the Brexiteers' definition of the EU blinking on fish may not match the reality. Will Johnson be able to sell a deal that his own supporters regard as a sell out?
With Labour support or even Labour abstention yes, Boris can then get a Deal through even if 50-100 Tory MPs join the DUP, the LDs, the SNP, Lucas and Plaid and vote against it
Would it be his final act as Tory leader?
No, as 2/3 of Tory MPs would still have voted for a Deal, as would his most likely replacement Rishi Sunak, so he would survive any confidence vote
Sunak? Keep up, Liz Truss is the future!
She's no Benny Hill, though, and Sunak even less so. Neither can be visualized chasing housewives on a milk float.
I think you're onto something with that btw. No kidding.
Have you not noticed the Fred Scuttle salute, gait, posture, clothing fit, and hair?
Tonight Matthew, I am Benny Hill!
Yep. It was a revelation when I saw your thesis and thought about it. It's spot on. It beats my Jimmy Savile one hands down. That was a stretch and not quite right. Again, for the sake of clarity, I consider this to be a totally serious and extremely insightful political exchange we're having here. No smiley face, note. Because it's no laughing matter. Johnson has tapped into exactly what you're describing - as Hill did - and has gained enormous success on the back of it. As Hill did.
It's this stage persona that has got him to the place in his career he has craved. I am sure he also entertains a variety of personal persona in order to achieve what he desires privately. There is very little of even the vaguest hint of Jimmy Saville malign about Johnson. Very, very little cuts through for me. Saville, by contrast, was a wicked sociopath and psychopath. Johnson I believe has sociopathic tendencies, in that he puts his own interests head and shoulders above everyone else, including loved ones, but he is no Jimmy Saville.
No, I agree. Your take is perfect. My "Savile" comparison was in allusion to people who develop a very distinct, eccentric, larger-than-life "persona" which allows them to sail through things that others could not. Allows them to deflect and confuse and entertain, all the time hiding who and what they really are. I think Johnson has that in spades, as Savile did. But I do mean just specifically that. Other than this, of course no. Any case, doesn't matter, we have this one now. Benny Hill. He's our PM. Yes he is.
Absolutely << crucial >> to the LD's for regaining visibility and in their identity, that should say below. ID cards were another very important issue for them like this, which the Tories temporarily piggy-backed off before more common and predictable authoritarian instincts among them number started to re-enter the frame.
The LDs have always prospered when they have a main policy position that is a) popular and b) different from that held by the Conservative and Labour parties.
Paddy Ashdown's 1p on income tax for education and of course Iraq were good examples. The problem with the Swinson "Revoke" position was that it was certainly b) but completely failed a).
It's more difficult when you are dealing with a populist Government whose very instinct is to remain on the right side of public opinion (as they see it). As we've seen, opinion can shift very quickly and it will be an adroit party (or just lucky) that benefits from being in the right place at the right time.
Just like Swinson, the anti-Lockdown party is b) but not a). Also in that category currently, I would argue, is proper fiscal management. The Magic Money Tree is always popular even if there is a constituency that considers such largesse unwise.
Those look pretty good prices, particularly the Pfizer and moderna.
That's the dose price and for that they've got pretty rubbish delivery timeframes. The opportunity cost of securing small discounts is absolutely huge.
Taking time to negotiate a price on this while ending at the 'back of the queue' is surely a case of "knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing".
The pandemic is costing us billions a month and thousands of lives. Even if we paid $5 more per dose to get it months sooner you're talking about $200mn extra in vaccine cost but billions and thousands of lives saved.
I'm not an LD, I'm a liberal. That's why I'm in the Conservative Party.
The thing is, a lot of people seem happy to describe themselves as "liberal" and all seem to have different interpretations of what the term "liberal" actually means.
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
Yes to that. But you can`t get away from ideological underpinnings completely: that the unit of importance for liberalism is the individual/liberty, for collectivists it is groups/communities and for conservatives it is family unit/nation.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
You've hit the nail on the head about individualism v collectivism v family/nationalism.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
You have a massive Nation State thing going on too. This is clear.
Off-topic but suitable Friday afternoon material. I am reading various legal documents for the House / Commercial unit I am buying in Scotland. They are written in the most fabulous Scottish legalese and because the property is old there is all kinds of fun in here.
They refer back to the original contract between the landowner and the feuars of the village signed 1st September 1896, then a Feu Charter between someone else and the "Union Bank of Scotland" to build their bank on 13th December 1868. Finally the disposal of the various elements of the property and land by Bank of Scotland in the 1990s and last decade. Had to Google "feuar" lol
There's a charming book, notionally science fiction but really a coming-of-age story, The Krugg Syndrome by Angus McAllister, where the intricacies of Scots property law are a major plot point.
Oh good, I've just ordered it!
In some ways I share DavidL's historical perspective, but keeping Norman feudal law in modern Scotland was just asking for trouble. Not so much in having to bribe the laird not to insist on your turning out at the next wapentake with granddad's helm and sword, but more the kind of cowboy who does similar things with leasehold in England, and I was quite relieved when amongst the first acts of the reconvened Scottish Parliament was to extinguish feudal landholding.
Is it necessary to test someone for Covid before giving that person the vaccine?
I assume not, in which case the question becomes: is the vaccine`s efficacy reduced for someone whose system is already battling a covid infection?
I would argue that someone who either has had or currently has COVID would not in theory benefit that much from a vaccine. Unless their immune system is somehow defective, they'll have already - after 3-4 days of infection - engaged their specific/adaptive immune system against COVID and started to produce COVID-specific antibodies and to develop COVID-specific memory T-Cells.
That is what the vaccine does, so I don't see it adding any value to the person either way. If their immune system is functional, they already have or on their way to having antibodies and memory T-Cells. If their immune system failed to react to the actual virus, in all probability it will fail to react to the vaccine.
As always, I stand to be corrected by someone with greater specific knowledge on this issue than me. But that would be the generic response for how the immune system and vaccines work.
Thanks. Makes sense to me. In which case SHOULD individuals be tested for Covid pre-vaccine? By not doing this we risk wasting shitloads of vaccines on individuals who will not benefit.
To complicated and time consuming given low incidence to date. You lose a percentage of people with each step in the process
@Philip_Thompson if you think the Welsh Government has done a poor job then you would need to concede Johnson has too.
But you won't as a member of his fan club.
I'm not overly critical of the Welsh government - but I don't deny they exist.
I don't claim the Tories aren't in Government. SNP supporters on this site don't claim the SNP aren't in Government. Uniquely only Labour supporters on this site seem to want to deny that a Labour Government within the UK even exists.
I do wonder what about Drakeford's Government makes Labour supporters uniquely so ashamed that Labour in Government even exists? You wouldn't see a Sturgeon supporter denying that she or her Government exists.
Is there possibly some confusion? Tories in Westminster are a majority admin, SNP in Scotland a minority one, but Labour is part of a coalition in Caerdydd is it not?
Absolutely << crucial >> to the LD's for regaining visibility and in their identity, that should say below. ID cards were another very important issue for them like this, which the Tories temporarily piggy-backed off before more common and predictable authoritarian instincts among them number started to re-enter the frame.
I've said before that the LD's biggest problem is that they are no longer third party in Parliament, so don't get 'called'. SNP are in that position, that's why we get Blackford banging on all the time. Back in the day first Jo Grimond, then Jeremy Thorpe could say something which would grab a headline.... lay down his friends for his life,........... for example. Even Cable...... Stalin to Mr Bean..... had the opportunity to do it. Now??????
What are the LDs for now? Their website still has the 2019 manifesto with its foreword by PMJS wishing to stop Brexit and build a brighter future.
Is that still the plan?
As I mentioned at the time, Layla Moran would have given much greater media-friendly quotability as a newer younger face. Because of his ties to the coalition, which still put a lot of left of centre voters off, and because Starmer is beginning to attract both left and centre-right voters, Davey needs to do a lot more to grab any attention away from the populist right. He was a very popular choice on PB as a more centre right-friendly figure, but without wanting to say I told you so, I did predict a scenario similar to the current one at the time. He could still turn it round in his tenure, because it's very early on , and he's an intelligent man who's also quite widely respected, but it's going to take a hell of a new approach.
Layla Moran's problem was that she was perceived as too "woke" and competing in that crowded segment. She might have got publicity but the wrong sort. [Is there such a thing?]
Ed Davey seems to be focussed on carers which is a deserving segment but I don't know how large it is.
Comments
Empathy... remorse... pity... guilt...
That really is one in the solar plexus.
Two weeks vs four weeks, neither was long enough clearly. You could just say both got it wrong but you cannot.
(And lo, another conspiracy meme was created.....)
Whatever you call him, he's crap.
I agree on the need to be more attention-grabbing - but this just isn't a relevant example.
...it cant be bargained with, it cant be reasoned with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop... EVER, untill you are dead!
(Remember the fly.)
2. Don't be such a prick, Malcolm, there's a good chap.
Nippy's Scotland seems to have a better handle on Covid than any of the other home nations. Is this by luck or judgement?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1339730530661789696
But the SDP/Cable element of the LDs as well as the probability a vote for the LDs could be a vote for an LD/Labour coalition puts me off the party.
They refer back to the original contract between the landowner and the feuars of the village signed 1st September 1896, then a Feu Charter between someone else and the "Union Bank of Scotland" to build their bank on 13th December 1868. Finally the disposal of the various elements of the property and land by Bank of Scotland in the 1990s and last decade. Had to Google "feuar" lol
Words from Flynn's mouth, sounding out the American people, before the same sounds come out of Trump's arse perhaps.
HYUFD is an unreconstructed intolerant Blue Corbyn.
Not 100% sure mine would hold up.
Not enough Keir, third lockdown
I've encountered liberals in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in my time and I suppose the real schism in 20th century politics was within liberalism. The emergence of social democracy in the 1930s and notions of the Welfare State, begun under Asquith and continued by Beveridge, have defined or re-defined liberalism and moved it away from the Gladstonian notion or, as it is sometimes termed, "classical liberalism".
Despite that, the superficial synergies between liberalism and social democracy masked some strong philosophical divergences . In the same way, Cameron's notion of "liberal conservatism", for all it appeared similar to Orange Book Liberalism, wasn't and the divergence after 2010 was rapid.
Looking at it now from the outside, it's not something over which to lose sleep. How political thought responds to growing environmental concerns, notions of AI and the place of the individual, not so much via-a-vis the State but in terms of the notion of individuality in the Information Age is the kind of areas of debate for liberals, conservatives and socialists alike.
You're too kind, you're always lovely to me!
Likewise for you.
Not helpful, but that is politics.
Given that the LibDems are supposed to be representing the former, it is regrettable that people like PT (and Truss for that matter) are not LibDems.
If you were to put me on the spot and sum up my philosophy in one of liberal, conservative or socialist I wouldn't hesitate to say liberal.
So in that essence HYUFD has a point in saying that I am not a "true Tory".
But it misses the fact that the "true Tory" party died in the 19th century. The modern Conservative Party has its roots with many a liberal. Lower case liberals have found a home in the Conservative Party since the 19th century and there is a reason their 20th century equivalent party downunder are called the Liberals (while the 'true Tories' there are the junior coalition partner the Nationals).
Politics ceased to be liberals v conservatives before any of us were born.
And there he is, apparently seriously suggesting the President order military forces into individual states, whose elections have been upheld by the courts, to make people to vote again at gunpoint (not to mention completely unconstitutionally).
That is a man who - beyond any shadow of a doubt - is horribly compromised in some way. It is inconceivable that he isn't being blackmailed by really heavy characters. Frightening stuff.
Now??????
https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1339952650733891584
(I went skiing the last two Sundays, if it makes you feel any better.)
Is that still the plan?
And, of course, I broke my neck skiing almost 2 years ago. Don`t know what happened. My daughter found me 10 metres off the piste in a big dip. They had to helicopter me off the mountain. But I recovered fully quickly, after much physio, and bounced back by going skiing three times last year.
I couldn`t live without skiing. You are missing out.
I believe firmly in individualism/liberty first and foremost. Can you say the same about LDs? Clegg, Davey, Alexander maybe which is why they worked well in the Coalition.
But not the Cable, Farron, Swinson wing who are more collectivists.
The GP practices being used to dispense the vaccine are fairly spread apart, and the way they seem to be doing it is to have clusters around the hospitals where the virus is. I found a full list for Kent by hunting about on the internet, and both Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone have a batch of vaccination centres each, yet nothing in Tonbridge or Sevenoaks where my mother is. And the way those practices seem to be working is to start with their own elderly patients, before moving onto those registered elsewhere.
The notice given can be only a couple of days - so there is still time before Xmas. But they’ll have to move some to get the over 80s all done this year, and this assumes that they can travel to what can be quite distant centres. In care homes I guess a session will be booked for someone to visit with a batch of vaccine and they’ll all be done at once.
Of course we hope they will vote tactically in any election.
https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1339952368771862528
The five year Coalition was a bad idea, and to my mind, even as a Guardian reader, they haven't really recovered yet.
What's Jo Swinson doing now?
At my GP, there are 3-4000 people within a 10-15 minute walk, and if we are all at home under a variety of lockdown they can get hold of most people.
Here I have occasionally had an appointment at a coupe of hours notice from them to me if it was pulling a nurse appointment forward, or a request for a quick consultation.
One thing in particular on the Lab side - they do not like to be glove puppets for the TUs.
On the Tory side, they are far less relaxed about unfettered markets / business.
Not that it greatly matters in the scheme of things - though it will matter a great deal for poorer countries.
https://twitter.com/JasonUkman/status/1339937759499350016
Amazing how that happened.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1339956396314517504
I once had the title of a Barony in Fife where the fishing grant was by the King and in Latin. Brilliant old document redolent of history, not a series of boxes filled in on a computer.
Wolff has signed up for another three years, which probably points to a longer rather than shorter Hamilton contract.
Cable served in the Coalition but never seemed comfortable or a good fit for it in my humble opinion. Of all the 2015 LD to Tory gains Twickenham was the one I was most pleased with. While if I lived in the seat of any of the first three I mentioned I could have voted for them.
Fantastic
A great success.
Paddy Ashdown's 1p on income tax for education and of course Iraq were good examples. The problem with the Swinson "Revoke" position was that it was certainly b) but completely failed a).
It's more difficult when you are dealing with a populist Government whose very instinct is to remain on the right side of public opinion (as they see it). As we've seen, opinion can shift very quickly and it will be an adroit party (or just lucky) that benefits from being in the right place at the right time.
Just like Swinson, the anti-Lockdown party is b) but not a). Also in that category currently, I would argue, is proper fiscal management. The Magic Money Tree is always popular even if there is a constituency that considers such largesse unwise.
The pandemic is costing us billions a month and thousands of lives. Even if we paid $5 more per dose to get it months sooner you're talking about $200mn extra in vaccine cost but billions and thousands of lives saved.
Should surely be a no brainer?
In some ways I share DavidL's historical perspective, but keeping Norman feudal law in modern Scotland was just asking for trouble. Not so much in having to bribe the laird not to insist on your turning out at the next wapentake with granddad's helm and sword, but more the kind of cowboy who does similar things with leasehold in England, and I was quite relieved when amongst the first acts of the reconvened Scottish Parliament was to extinguish feudal landholding.
JFDI.
Ed Davey seems to be focussed on carers which is a deserving segment but I don't know how large it is.