Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

After the weekend’s dramatic Boris U-turn the papers are not good for the PM this morning – politica

1234568»

Comments

  • Options
    alednamalednam Posts: 186

    HYUFD said:

    Wow - he just gave Boris political cover for a No Deal Brexit. A brave choice...
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1340986299847749632?s=20

    Starmer has basically decided going for extension means political suicide for Labour with Red Wall voters, so he has decided to push for a Deal but otherwise not support any extension and let the PM own No Deal if Boris goes for that
    Sure, but it doesn't require much, er, foresight to see that if the option of an extension is closed off, and the EU doesn't accept what the UK is requesting, then the inevitable consequence is No Deal. A wee bit risky for Starmer however he tries to spin it.
    Outside the dream world of Tory fanbois there are very few voters who are going to blame Starmer for the inevitable consequences of no deal Brexit!
    Maybe not yet, but I'd be more careful of that , in his position.
    FFS the PM has a majority of 80 and is the one negotiating. It is pathetic of anyone, regardless of their views on Brexit, to give any of the responsibility for Brexit to anyone bar the PM.
    I agree with you on the moral principle, but not on the public and political risks.
    I thought that nearly everyone, regardless of their views on Brexit, had come to see that it was to the UK's massive detriment, that it has Boris Johnson as P.M. We should be alert to the dangers -- and they're not merely risks.
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,523
    edited December 2020
    How Venture Capitalists Are Deforming Capitalism

    'Even the worst-run startup can beat competitors if investors prop it up. The V.C. firm Benchmark helped enable WeWork to make one wild mistake after another—hoping that its gamble would pay off before disaster struck.'

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/30/how-venture-capitalists-are-deforming-capitalism
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,596
    edited December 2020
    I do love this photo from the BBC website of a later-in-life Willy Wonka being vaccinated.

    image

    image
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    witter.com/AgentP22/status/1340983430599864321?s=20

    The ONS estimate is 1-in-95 Infections in England and 1-in-100 infections in Scotland

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26#health
    So quite a long way off "around half".....
    Based on the coronavirus dashboard they are around half.

    Based on the ONS data they are slightly less.

    Neither of them show them as more. Agent P once again stands for Agent made up Pish. A little less credulousness before eagerly reposting attacks would be good for you.
    More Tory lies from Lady Haw Haw, I see from her favourite spoof liar as well. Dog food salesman will be rolled out next to tell us how poor and stupid we are as well and how us being a fraction of England's numbers must mean SNPBAD.
  • Options
    So far has been experience in Guernsey too - returning students have behaved more responsibly than genpop:

    https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1340965543763972096?s=20
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    malcolmg said:

    Usual London Labour bollox. They have always been against Scotland having a say.
    PS: I burst some ribs laughing at "passionately" , given they are a bunch of boring twats and would not recognise passion if it hit them in the face. Labour are irrelevant in Scotland and it shows when they need to dig up Brown to lead the pygmies.
    I find myself strongly in support of Malcolm. Teamwork can take many unusual forms!

    This is grossly undemocratic and duplicitous of Labour. They know that they will never win back power if they don't attempt to regain Scottish seats.

    And that, quite simply, is their sole reason for 'defending the union.'
  • Options

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    It would be challenged through the courts and get tied up for years

    There is a reason Sturgeon wants it with HOC consent, she knows that is the only surefire way of it being legal
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,942
    edited December 2020

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wow - he just gave Boris political cover for a No Deal Brexit. A brave choice...
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1340986299847749632?s=20

    Starmer has basically decided going for extension means political suicide for Labour with Red Wall voters, so he has decided to push for a Deal but otherwise not support any extension and let the PM own No Deal if Boris goes for that
    Sure, but it doesn't require much, er, foresight to see that if the option of an extension is closed off, and the EU doesn't accept what the UK is requesting, then the inevitable consequence is No Deal. A wee bit risky for Starmer however he tries to spin it.
    Outside the dream world of Tory fanbois there are very few voters who are going to blame Starmer for the inevitable consequences of no deal Brexit!
    Agreed.

    But n/a because Johnson won't do WTO Brexit.

    His 2 real world choices are (i) agree the deal or (ii) agree an extension and keep talking.
    (ii) is not an option.

    WTO is more likely than (ii)

    But even (i) lacks a Customs Union if that's what you're worried about.
    (i) and (ii) could blend. Deal teed up but not yet ratified, extension for that, or ratified but needs an implementation period.

    Whatever, there will be not be a single day of WTO.

    But my point is on the politics. Starmer should keep pressing for the deal. Not get suckered into calling for an extension. Learn from last year.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554

    Alistair said:

    I mean, there's obvious limitations to the data on the Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard but here are the figures from the Official UK government Coronavirus Dashboard.




    Cue Agent Pee going on a ranting rampage against the pro Nat Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard.
    Carlotta caught lying yet again. Unionists getting ever more desperate with their porkie pies. Those damn SNP beggars will just not make the mistakes that Tories do, infuriating.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,947
    malcolmg said:

    Under the last Labour government child poverty fell by 150,000 in Scotland. But under the SNP, child poverty has risen sharply and is forecast to reach one in three Scottish children by 2030. And I’m afraid it’s the same story on public health. Life expectancy in Scotland is now the lowest in Western Europe – with Scottish men in the poorest areas expected to die 13 years before those in least deprived areas.

    Finally, it's time to attack the SNP on policy. Now Independence is neutralised we can re-build.

    What comic did you read that one in then. From that mince I can presume you have never been to Scotland in your cream puff and know the square root of nothing regarding the arse London Labour made of running Scotland.
    Also if you look at the life expectency in the poorest English areas you will find it is little different you gibbering halfwitted cretinous numpty.
    Take your London Labour Party commie claptrap and stick it up your jacksie.
    I take it you don't agree with CHB?
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,716
    edited December 2020
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Yup. His second notable mistake after the handling of the Corbyn dispute, in what's been a good year for him overall. He better hope that a deal at least partially protects him from the fallout.
    I disagree. if there is an extension to the transition period Starmer is going to attack Johnson mercilessly for failing to deliver, thus sending a message to red-wallers and others that his Brexit-blocking days are over.
    LD revival in that case.
    Starmer can easily afford a LD revival in Hampstead, Camden, Islington, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge etc as Labour will easily still win most of those seats anyway.

    What he cannot afford is for Labour to lose Red Wall voters again by being seen to block full delivery of Brexit, hence his position of no extension to the transition period but get the Deal done first to avoid No Deal
    I don't agree at all. If Starmer starts to be seen not only as maintaining a hands-off approach to Brexit, but positively championing its acceleration, he'll start to lose huge swathes of voters in all sorts of places all over the country. It's easy to forget because of press coverage, but the majority have been against Brexit since 2017. Many of those will tolerate but never endorse.
    Disagree with you on this. Let's not repeat the substance of the Benn Act mistake which served up the election on a plate to Johnson. He and the Tories own Brexit. They promised a deal. If he is up against the wire now - faced with a choice of agreeing a deal his headbangers won't like, or an extension, or no deal - do NOT help him out.

    "You said you'd get a deal by year end. Get a deal by year end." - should be the line. End of.

    Johnson has been utterly ruthless in his use of Brexit to fuck over everyone else. Time to reciprocate.
    Well, that's broadly what Starmer's been saying already so far this year, and it's a reasonable strategy. The specifics of saying you actively oppose an extension is different to that, though - especially in the current climate - and carries probably unnecessary political risks.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wow - he just gave Boris political cover for a No Deal Brexit. A brave choice...
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1340986299847749632?s=20

    Starmer has basically decided going for extension means political suicide for Labour with Red Wall voters, so he has decided to push for a Deal but otherwise not support any extension and let the PM own No Deal if Boris goes for that
    Sure, but it doesn't require much, er, foresight to see that if the option of an extension is closed off, and the EU doesn't accept what the UK is requesting, then the inevitable consequence is No Deal. A wee bit risky for Starmer however he tries to spin it.
    Outside the dream world of Tory fanbois there are very few voters who are going to blame Starmer for the inevitable consequences of no deal Brexit!
    Agreed.

    But n/a because Johnson won't do WTO Brexit.

    His 2 real world choices are (i) agree the deal or (ii) agree an extension and keep talking.
    (ii) is not an option.

    WTO is more likely than (ii)

    But even (i) lacks a Customs Union if that's what you're worried about.
    (i) and (ii) could blend. Deal teed up but not yet ratified, extension for that, or ratified but needs an implementation period.

    Whatever, there will be not be a single day of WTO.

    But my point is on the politics. Starmer should keep pressing for the deal. Not get suckered into calling for an extension. Learn from last year.
    I would fully expect any deal to be coming with an implementation period.

    But that entails a deal being agreed. If one isn't then it is WTO that is the alternative. Whatever you think. Extension without a deal is a not happening event.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,281
    edited December 2020

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554
    gealbhan said:

    I want devolution and social justice to be the hallmarks of the next Labour government.

    Very Blair.

    Very bland.
    He is an empty suit
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,667
    Scott_xP said:
    Fortress Europe, eh Germany?

    Let us know how that works out.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,281

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    Lots agree and we are likely to find out soon if Bozo sticks to his mantra. Too many armchair lawyers think they know the answer.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,274
    I am delighted to report that our Riverford delivery has arrived as planned. Sprouts and parsnips ready for Friday.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,392

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    The only arguments I have seen putting that interpretation forward come from Joanna Cherry and the bloke who runs Business for Scotland.

    They also argue that the Supreme Court has no authority superior to the Court of Sessions, which is a simple lie and one that a brief glance at the CoS’s website disproves in a flash.

    A referendum is, as the SNP under Salmond already conceded, a constitutional matter. Constitutional matters are specifically reserved to Westminster. Therefore, it is a reserved matter.

    Any statement in the SNP’s manifesto stronger than ‘we will petition Westminster for the authority to hold a referendum on the grounds that this is what the people of Scotland want’ would therefore bemeaningless, and I suspect Sturgeon is far too wily to include anything more direct.
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    Alistair said:

    I mean, there's obvious limitations to the data on the Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard but here are the figures from the Official UK government Coronavirus Dashboard.




    Cue Agent Pee going on a ranting rampage against the pro Nat Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard.
    Carlotta caught lying yet again. Unionists getting ever more desperate with their porkie pies. Those damn SNP beggars will just not make the mistakes that Tories do, infuriating.
    So 1 in 100 is "around half" of 1 in 95?

    Nats & maths, eh?

    And I see today we've gone from "around half" to "volatile"

    https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1341000949222023168?s=20
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
    I respect the will of the Scottish voters in 2021.

    It is their choice. Not yours. Not 2014s. 2021 trumps 2014.
  • Options
    gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    On the earlier debate on here about the PM's draconian announcement on Saturday, it seems to me that there are two separate, though interrelated, issues.

    1. The Tier 4 announcement in response to the mutant strain - no big complaints here about the timeline, given the NERVTAG minutes.

    2. The changed advice about Xmas arrangements across the country. This is where Boris has failed abysmally. If you look at the case data, it's clear that cases started rising again quite rapidly from 6/7 December, just a few days after the end of the 'lockdown'. It was certainly clear from around 10 December that the idea of a 5-day Xmas extended bubble was sheer madness, regardless of the mutant strain. So, as Starmer said, the PM should have rowed back on the Xmas plans much earlier, around a fortnight before Xmas.

    As the focus turns now to the NERVTAG minutes, here’s a flash back we hope is not a precedent.

    “ the claim in the foreword to the document written by British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."[3]

    Britain's biggest selling popular daily newspaper, The Sun, subsequently carried the headline "Brits 45mins from doom",[4] while the Daily Star reported "Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war",[5] helping to create the impression among the British public that Iraq was a threat to Britain.

    Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier wrote to the Chilcot Inquiry in 2011 saying "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."[6] On 26 June 2011, The Observer reported on a memo from John Scarlett to Blair's foreign affairs adviser, released under the Freedom of Information Act, which referred to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional". The memo has been described as one of the most significant documents on the September dossier yet published as it is considered a proposal to mislead the public.”

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,281
    edited December 2020

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Yup. His second notable mistake after the handling of the Corbyn dispute, in what's been a good year for him overall. He better hope that a deal at least partially protects him from the fallout.
    I disagree. if there is an extension to the transition period Starmer is going to attack Johnson mercilessly for failing to deliver, thus sending a message to red-wallers and others that his Brexit-blocking days are over.
    LD revival in that case.
    Starmer can easily afford a LD revival in Hampstead, Camden, Islington, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge etc as Labour will easily still win most of those seats anyway.

    What he cannot afford is for Labour to lose Red Wall voters again by being seen to block full delivery of Brexit, hence his position of no extension to the transition period but get the Deal done first to avoid No Deal
    I don't agree at all. If Starmer starts to be seen not only as maintaining a hands-off approach to Brexit, but positively championing its acceleration, he'll start to lose huge swathes of voters in all sorts of places all over the country. It's easy to forget because of press coverage, but the majority have been against Brexit since 2017. Many of those will tolerate but never endorse.
    Blair won a majority in 2005 with just 36% of the vote as he won the working class Red Wall and the Midlands and safe Labour seats despite heavy loss of upper middle class metropolitan latte sipping urban voters to the LDs in the latter over Iraq, Corbyn failed to win even with 40% of the vote in 2017 as his biggest gains were in safe Labour seats anyway and Corbyn was trounced in 2019 after losing the Red Wall as Labour was seen as being outright opposed to Brexit.

    The Midlands and Northern Red Wall seats are Starmer's equivalent of the MidWest swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania Biden won back to become President. Under FPTP the Red Wall is what he has to win back to get to No 10, he needs to win back working class Leave voting ex Labour voters in the Red Wall, he can afford to lose a few latte sipping diehard Remainers back to the LDs in wealthy middle class metropolitan areas
    The problem is that Brexit is a keystone, zero-sum identity issue that cuts both ways. Biden didn't have to deal with anything like that. Starmer can lose huge support and gain other support over it, but without securing the liberal base that broadly backed Remain not only in cities but also elsewhere first, he'll lose.
    Not true, even if Starmer lost half his Remain seats to the LDs he could still end up PM as most Labour seats in 2016 voted Leave as did most of the Labour target seats for the next election, assuming Davey preferred Starmer over Boris and the SNP backed him too
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    So does this one

    https://twitter.com/Simon4NDorset/status/1340944973752119298?s=20

    However extending our membership of the SM and CU beyond January would be terrible for the Tories and lead to mass defections to Farage exactly as happened from spring 2019 when May delayed Brexit.

    65% of Tory voters and 63% of Leave voters oppose extending the transition period

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1337443446123073537?s=20.

    The best option for Boris and the Tories is to agree a basic Canada style trade deal with the EU, however even No Deal would be better than extending the transition period for the party if that cannot be agreed by January
    We are 4 years out from a General Election. Johnson moving the date by a month or two will have absolutely no impact on what people think in 4 years time. What will matter to Johnson at the next election is whether or not he can reasonably claim that Brexit has been a success. The fact that 4 years earlier it happened 30 or 60 days later than planned will be completely immaterial.
    If we are 4 years out from an election, why the mad rush to repeal the FTPA?
    No idea. But then I don't understand many of the Government's decisions and probably agree with even fewer of them.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited December 2020
    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,285

    Andy_JS said:
    Another Superspreader event?
    It doesn't have to be - only the relevant minister(s)* and the speaker staff need truly to be there in person.

    * And not even then in extremis, PMQs has been done with both PM and LOTO self isolating.

    It is the perfect time for the virtual parliament.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,392
    edited December 2020

    I am delighted to report that our Riverford delivery has arrived as planned. Sprouts and parsnips ready for Friday.

    I read that as sprouts and pineapples, which struck me as a strange combination. Still, each to their own as long as it doesn’t involve pizza.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,281

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Yup. His second notable mistake after the handling of the Corbyn dispute, in what's been a good year for him overall. He better hope that a deal at least partially protects him from the fallout.
    I disagree. if there is an extension to the transition period Starmer is going to attack Johnson mercilessly for failing to deliver, thus sending a message to red-wallers and others that his Brexit-blocking days are over.
    LD revival in that case.
    Starmer can easily afford a LD revival in Hampstead, Camden, Islington, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge etc as Labour will easily still win most of those seats anyway.

    What he cannot afford is for Labour to lose Red Wall voters again by being seen to block full delivery of Brexit, hence his position of no extension to the transition period but get the Deal done first to avoid No Deal
    I don't agree at all. If Starmer starts to be seen not only as maintaining a hands-off approach to Brexit, but positively championing its acceleration, he'll start to lose huge swathes of voters in all sorts of places all over the country. It's easy to forget because of press coverage, but the majority have been against Brexit since 2017. Many of those will tolerate but never endorse.
    Blair won a majority in 2005 with just 36% of the vote as he won the working class Red Wall and the Midlands and safe Labour seats despite heavy loss of upper middle class metropolitan latte sipping urban voters to the LDs in the latter over Iraq, Corbyn failed to win even with 40% of the vote in 2017 as his biggest gains were in safe Labour seats anyway and Corbyn was trounced in 2019 after losing the Red Wall as Labour was seen as being outright opposed to Brexit.

    The Midlands and Northern Red Wall seats are Starmer's equivalent of the MidWest swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania Biden won back to become President. Under FPTP the Red Wall is what he has to win back to get to No 10, he needs to win back working class Leave voting ex Labour voters in the Red Wall, he can afford to lose a few latte sipping diehard Remainers back to the LDs in wealthy middle class metropolitan areas
    I think you're just projecting your own wish casting into this so-called analysis. And you are, in the process, straining for fern seed a mile away and missing the bloody great elephant standing straight in front of you.

    In 2005 Labour won 41 Scottish seats

    In 2019 Labour won 1 Scottish seat
    Whether a Scottish seat has a Labour MP or an SNP MP is irrelevant as they both would not vote for a Tory PM
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    Dear Dear G, I thought you had some self awareness on politics. If you think an aged useless hated hasbeen and an empty suit London millionaire pretend ToryLabourite will stop or even delay Independence then you are barking.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,281

    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

    There isn't, Westminster is sovereign, Boris will refuse a legal indyref2 while he is PM and Unionist Scots would boycott any such illegal referendum
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,392

    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

    Instantly and obviously false, as the UK doesn’t have a constitution so it can’t be ‘fundamentally changed.’
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,996
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Yup. His second notable mistake after the handling of the Corbyn dispute, in what's been a good year for him overall. He better hope that a deal at least partially protects him from the fallout.
    I disagree. if there is an extension to the transition period Starmer is going to attack Johnson mercilessly for failing to deliver, thus sending a message to red-wallers and others that his Brexit-blocking days are over.
    LD revival in that case.
    Starmer can easily afford a LD revival in Hampstead, Camden, Islington, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge etc as Labour will easily still win most of those seats anyway.

    What he cannot afford is for Labour to lose Red Wall voters again by being seen to block full delivery of Brexit, hence his position of no extension to the transition period but get the Deal done first to avoid No Deal
    I don't agree at all. If Starmer starts to be seen not only as maintaining a hands-off approach to Brexit, but positively championing its acceleration, he'll start to lose huge swathes of voters in all sorts of places all over the country. It's easy to forget because of press coverage, but the majority have been against Brexit since 2017. Many of those will tolerate but never endorse.
    Disagree with you on this. Let's not repeat the substance of the Benn Act mistake which served up the election on a plate to Johnson. He and the Tories own Brexit. They promised a deal. If he is up against the wire now - faced with a choice of agreeing a deal his headbangers won't like, or an extension, or no deal - do NOT help him out.

    "You said you'd get a deal by year end. Get a deal by year end." - should be the line. End of.

    Johnson has been utterly ruthless in his use of Brexit to fuck over everyone else. Time to reciprocate.
    Yeah - suspect you're right.
    For the general public, regardless of the merits, the idea of an extension to transition = not getting it done.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    It would be challenged through the courts and get tied up for years

    There is a reason Sturgeon wants it with HOC consent, she knows that is the only surefire way of it being legal
    WE shall see soon enough
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    HYUFD said:

    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

    There isn't, Westminster is sovereign, Boris will refuse a legal indyref2 while he is PM and Unionist Scots would boycott any such illegal referendum
    You haven't read what I put.

    Westminster is not necessarily legally sovereign according to the two stage idea proposed by none other than Sir John Major, the former PM and leader of your beloved tories. Re-read the link.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited December 2020

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    So does this one

    https://twitter.com/Simon4NDorset/status/1340944973752119298?s=20

    However extending our membership of the SM and CU beyond January would be terrible for the Tories and lead to mass defections to Farage exactly as happened from spring 2019 when May delayed Brexit.

    65% of Tory voters and 63% of Leave voters oppose extending the transition period

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1337443446123073537?s=20.

    The best option for Boris and the Tories is to agree a basic Canada style trade deal with the EU, however even No Deal would be better than extending the transition period for the party if that cannot be agreed by January
    We are 4 years out from a General Election. Johnson moving the date by a month or two will have absolutely no impact on what people think in 4 years time. What will matter to Johnson at the next election is whether or not he can reasonably claim that Brexit has been a success. The fact that 4 years earlier it happened 30 or 60 days later than planned will be completely immaterial.
    If we are 4 years out from an election, why the mad rush to repeal the FTPA?
    No idea. But then I don't understand many of the Government's decisions and probably agree with even fewer of them.
    I don't know if you saw my question before but what exactly do you expect an extension to achieve?

    If a compromise is possible it ought to be agreeable today. Or this week.

    If one is not possible it won't be possible with an extension either.

    I understand why Remainers want to kick the can hoping something turns up but not you. What do you expect to be different in 2 months time from today?

    An extension post agreement of a deal would be an entirely different matter. A deal agreed then an implementation period would make sense. But not to just delay choices over compromise or no deal.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Scott_xP said:
    Fortress Europe, eh Germany?

    Let us know how that works out.
    Wonder what the WHO have to say about all this ....
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,392
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    Dear Dear G, I thought you had some self awareness on politics. If you think an aged useless hated hasbeen and an empty suit London millionaire pretend ToryLabourite will stop or even delay Independence then you are barking.
    I’ll put you down as a ‘Maybe’ Malc.

    Honestly, I haven’t seen you this exercised since the defeat in 2014.
  • Options
    gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    HYUFD said:

    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

    There isn't, Westminster is sovereign, Boris will refuse a legal indyref2 while he is PM and Unionist Scots would boycott any such illegal referendum
    Unless of course those sovereign powers were illegally taken from Scotland to Westminster in the first place.

    Moses led the Jews to Freedom from someone who claimed sovereign right over them, did he not?
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Yup. His second notable mistake after the handling of the Corbyn dispute, in what's been a good year for him overall. He better hope that a deal at least partially protects him from the fallout.
    I disagree. if there is an extension to the transition period Starmer is going to attack Johnson mercilessly for failing to deliver, thus sending a message to red-wallers and others that his Brexit-blocking days are over.
    LD revival in that case.
    Starmer can easily afford a LD revival in Hampstead, Camden, Islington, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge etc as Labour will easily still win most of those seats anyway.

    What he cannot afford is for Labour to lose Red Wall voters again by being seen to block full delivery of Brexit, hence his position of no extension to the transition period but get the Deal done first to avoid No Deal
    I don't agree at all. If Starmer starts to be seen not only as maintaining a hands-off approach to Brexit, but positively championing its acceleration, he'll start to lose huge swathes of voters in all sorts of places all over the country. It's easy to forget because of press coverage, but the majority have been against Brexit since 2017. Many of those will tolerate but never endorse.
    Blair won a majority in 2005 with just 36% of the vote as he won the working class Red Wall and the Midlands and safe Labour seats despite heavy loss of upper middle class metropolitan latte sipping urban voters to the LDs in the latter over Iraq, Corbyn failed to win even with 40% of the vote in 2017 as his biggest gains were in safe Labour seats anyway and Corbyn was trounced in 2019 after losing the Red Wall as Labour was seen as being outright opposed to Brexit.

    The Midlands and Northern Red Wall seats are Starmer's equivalent of the MidWest swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania Biden won back to become President. Under FPTP the Red Wall is what he has to win back to get to No 10, he needs to win back working class Leave voting ex Labour voters in the Red Wall, he can afford to lose a few latte sipping diehard Remainers back to the LDs in wealthy middle class metropolitan areas
    I think you're just projecting your own wish casting into this so-called analysis. And you are, in the process, straining for fern seed a mile away and missing the bloody great elephant standing straight in front of you.

    In 2005 Labour won 41 Scottish seats

    In 2019 Labour won 1 Scottish seat
    Whether a Scottish seat has a Labour MP or an SNP MP is irrelevant as they both would not vote for a Tory PM
    Not true. It is entirely relevant as Cameron's campaign in 2015 demonstrated.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,392
    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

    There isn't, Westminster is sovereign, Boris will refuse a legal indyref2 while he is PM and Unionist Scots would boycott any such illegal referendum
    Unless of course those sovereign powers were illegally taken from Scotland to Westminster in the first place.

    Moses led the Jews to Freedom from someone who claimed sovereign right over them, did he not?
    Are we seriously now at the stage where we’re talking about the legality of the Act of Union?

    Mind you, given it was mostly secured by bribery arguments on those lines might be more profitable than the idiocies of Cherry.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited December 2020

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
    I respect the will of the Scottish voters in 2021.

    It is their choice. Not yours. Not 2014s. 2021 trumps 2014.
    I find myself agreeing with you and at least you are being consistent (cf. your remarks on Northern Ireland) unlike HYUFD who simply bends everything he can to backup his view. The result in HYUFD's case is breathtaking inconsistency.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554

    malcolmg said:

    Alistair said:

    I mean, there's obvious limitations to the data on the Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard but here are the figures from the Official UK government Coronavirus Dashboard.




    Cue Agent Pee going on a ranting rampage against the pro Nat Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard.
    Carlotta caught lying yet again. Unionists getting ever more desperate with their porkie pies. Those damn SNP beggars will just not make the mistakes that Tories do, infuriating.
    So 1 in 100 is "around half" of 1 in 95?

    Nats & maths, eh?

    And I see today we've gone from "around half" to "volatile"

    https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1341000949222023168?s=20
    How evil can someone be, gloating and slavering over more people dying of a virus just because it feeds your hatred of Scotland. You really are a vile odious creature. How could anyone wish for a country to have more virus, you should be ashamed of yourself taking such glee at families misfortunes.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    A referendum is, as the SNP under Salmond already conceded, a constitutional matter. Constitutional matters are specifically reserved to Westminster. Therefore, it is a reserved matter.

    .
    Not so. Read the link.
  • Options
    "this is but the latest evidence that the quality of experience, intelligence and level-headedness around the Cabinet table is unequal to the challenges our country currently faces."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/12/20/beware-boris-rage-people-reaching-end-tether-could-end-tears/
  • Options
    gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
    I respect the will of the Scottish voters in 2021.

    It is their choice. Not yours. Not 2014s. 2021 trumps 2014.
    Agreed. It’s to HYs weakness he doesn’t recognise anything before brexit is now rendered irrelevant. Brexit has substantially changed it.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,392

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
    I respect the will of the Scottish voters in 2021.

    It is their choice. Not yours. Not 2014s. 2021 trumps 2014.
    I find myself agreeing with you and at least you are being consistent (cf. your remarks on Northern Ireland) unlike HYUFD who simply bends everything he can to backup his view. The result in HYUFD's case is breathtaking inconsistency.
    In all the years I have known him (and I have met him in person when we both at Aber, although I don’t think he would remember me) I’ve only ever once known Hyufd admit to be wrong. And that was on a very minor point.

    Otherwise, he just twists everything to try and make it look as if he was correct.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,285
    edited December 2020
    General lockdowns as the world can bear should now be put in place. The quickest way to reach herd immunity is through the existing vaccines. Every recombination/mutation gives the virus a chance to escape the scope of these vaccines.

    Thank goodness Biden will be in charge of the Federal Gov't in the USA in a month's time.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,392

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    A referendum is, as the SNP under Salmond already conceded, a constitutional matter. Constitutional matters are specifically reserved to Westminster. Therefore, it is a reserved matter.

    .
    Not so. Read the link.
    I have. The link is wrong. Simple as.
  • Options
    Scottish Tories will likely be wiped out in Scotland in 2024, Labour has an opening here.

    2019 election for them was an utter disaster, well deserved of course.

    Starmer is a lot more popular in Scotland than Johnson
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,978

    Wow - he just gave Boris political cover for a No Deal Brexit. A brave choice...
    You are deluding yourself if you believe that blame for any consequences of a No Deal Brexit are going to rest anywhere but the Conservative Party Brexiteers
  • Options
    gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    I am delighted to report that our Riverford delivery has arrived as planned. Sprouts and parsnips ready for Friday.

    Are you sure you want to be smug, boastful and bragging over this at this moment in time? In this world we live in? Is this your seasonal understand of how to be jolly? Do you appreciate how it is coming across?
  • Options
    No Deal will not be Labour's responsibility, it will be entirely on the Tories. They got the majority, they got the Government. Their problem now
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,942
    edited December 2020

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wow - he just gave Boris political cover for a No Deal Brexit. A brave choice...
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1340986299847749632?s=20

    Starmer has basically decided going for extension means political suicide for Labour with Red Wall voters, so he has decided to push for a Deal but otherwise not support any extension and let the PM own No Deal if Boris goes for that
    Sure, but it doesn't require much, er, foresight to see that if the option of an extension is closed off, and the EU doesn't accept what the UK is requesting, then the inevitable consequence is No Deal. A wee bit risky for Starmer however he tries to spin it.
    Outside the dream world of Tory fanbois there are very few voters who are going to blame Starmer for the inevitable consequences of no deal Brexit!
    Agreed.

    But n/a because Johnson won't do WTO Brexit.

    His 2 real world choices are (i) agree the deal or (ii) agree an extension and keep talking.
    (ii) is not an option.

    WTO is more likely than (ii)

    But even (i) lacks a Customs Union if that's what you're worried about.
    (i) and (ii) could blend. Deal teed up but not yet ratified, extension for that, or ratified but needs an implementation period.

    Whatever, there will be not be a single day of WTO.

    But my point is on the politics. Starmer should keep pressing for the deal. Not get suckered into calling for an extension. Learn from last year.
    I would fully expect any deal to be coming with an implementation period.

    But that entails a deal being agreed. If one isn't then it is WTO that is the alternative. Whatever you think. Extension without a deal is a not happening event.
    Has to be capitals - a Not Happening Event. WTO Brexit being the epitome of.

    An extension? Hmm. No, I wouldn't go as far as NHE. I still expect a deal to be done by 31/12 but if it isn't - not quite - there are fudging options.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55321742

    Could be called something different to "Extension", of course, to save certain faces. Probably would be.
  • Options
    gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    ydoethur said:

    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

    There isn't, Westminster is sovereign, Boris will refuse a legal indyref2 while he is PM and Unionist Scots would boycott any such illegal referendum
    Unless of course those sovereign powers were illegally taken from Scotland to Westminster in the first place.

    Moses led the Jews to Freedom from someone who claimed sovereign right over them, did he not?
    Are we seriously now at the stage where we’re talking about the legality of the Act of Union?

    Mind you, given it was mostly secured by bribery arguments on those lines might be more profitable than the idiocies of Cherry.
    Go on then. Tell us about it.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,794
    edited December 2020

    No Deal will not be Labour's responsibility, it will be entirely on the Tories. They got the majority, they got the Government. Their problem now

    Why did you say Starmer has made a mistake earlier then?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 48,149
    Stocky said:

    Yup. His second notable mistake after the handling of the Corbyn dispute, in what's been a good year for him overall. He better hope that a deal at least partially protects him from the fallout.
    I disagree. if there is an extension to the transition period Starmer is going to attack Johnson mercilessly for failing to deliver, thus sending a message to red-wallers and others that his Brexit-blocking days are over.
    Opposing the consequences is always safer than opposing the decision. Provided you can keep your head down at decision time.
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
    I respect the will of the Scottish voters in 2021.

    It is their choice. Not yours. Not 2014s. 2021 trumps 2014.
    I find myself agreeing with you and at least you are being consistent (cf. your remarks on Northern Ireland) unlike HYUFD who simply bends everything he can to backup his view. The result in HYUFD's case is breathtaking inconsistency.
    Thank you.

    For me democracy is the most important principle we have.

    More important than left or right.
    More important than leave or remain.
    More important than success or failure.
    More important than boom or bust.
    More important than war or peace.

    If we lose democracy we lose the ability to change course. Nothing is more important than that.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,794
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wow - he just gave Boris political cover for a No Deal Brexit. A brave choice...
    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1340986299847749632?s=20

    Starmer has basically decided going for extension means political suicide for Labour with Red Wall voters, so he has decided to push for a Deal but otherwise not support any extension and let the PM own No Deal if Boris goes for that
    Sure, but it doesn't require much, er, foresight to see that if the option of an extension is closed off, and the EU doesn't accept what the UK is requesting, then the inevitable consequence is No Deal. A wee bit risky for Starmer however he tries to spin it.
    Outside the dream world of Tory fanbois there are very few voters who are going to blame Starmer for the inevitable consequences of no deal Brexit!
    Agreed.

    But n/a because Johnson won't do WTO Brexit.

    His 2 real world choices are (i) agree the deal or (ii) agree an extension and keep talking.
    (ii) is not an option.

    WTO is more likely than (ii)

    But even (i) lacks a Customs Union if that's what you're worried about.
    (i) and (ii) could blend. Deal teed up but not yet ratified, extension for that, or ratified but needs an implementation period.

    Whatever, there will be not be a single day of WTO.

    But my point is on the politics. Starmer should keep pressing for the deal. Not get suckered into calling for an extension. Learn from last year.
    I would fully expect any deal to be coming with an implementation period.

    But that entails a deal being agreed. If one isn't then it is WTO that is the alternative. Whatever you think. Extension without a deal is a not happening event.
    Has to be capitals - a Not Happening Event. WTO Brexit being the epitome of.

    An extension? Hmm. No, I wouldn't go as far as NHE. I still expect a deal to be done by 31/12 but if it isn't - not quite - there are fudging options.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55321742

    Could be called something different to "Extension", of course, to save certain faces. Probably would be.
    A "lean to"?
  • Options
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Alistair said:

    I mean, there's obvious limitations to the data on the Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard but here are the figures from the Official UK government Coronavirus Dashboard.




    Cue Agent Pee going on a ranting rampage against the pro Nat Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard.
    Carlotta caught lying yet again. Unionists getting ever more desperate with their porkie pies. Those damn SNP beggars will just not make the mistakes that Tories do, infuriating.
    So 1 in 100 is "around half" of 1 in 95?

    Nats & maths, eh?

    And I see today we've gone from "around half" to "volatile"

    https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1341000949222023168?s=20
    How evil can someone be, gloating and slavering over more people dying of a virus just because it feeds your hatred of Scotland. You really are a vile odious creature. How could anyone wish for a country to have more virus, you should be ashamed of yourself taking such glee at families misfortunes.
    Does that logic apply to Sturgeon boasting that COVID in Scotland was “around half” of England?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,281
    edited December 2020

    HYUFD said:

    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

    There isn't, Westminster is sovereign, Boris will refuse a legal indyref2 while he is PM and Unionist Scots would boycott any such illegal referendum
    You haven't read what I put.

    Westminster is not necessarily legally sovereign according to the two stage idea proposed by none other than Sir John Major, the former PM and leader of your beloved tories. Re-read the link.
    It is and has been ever since the 2 Parliaments of Scotland and England were merged into 1 Parliament at Westminster in 1707, Holyrood was merely a creation of Westminster in the late 1990s and legally and constututionally could be suspended tomorrow by Westminster, even if politically that might be risky.

    Major unfortunately has just become a diehard Remainer
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    There's a route to indyref2 without Westminster which may not involve years in the courts. Holyrood is obviously key here. Here's a pathway:

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-holyrood-could-stage-referendum-without-westminster-approval-under-two-vote-plan-3034602

    The forceful argument is that Brexit has fundamentally changed the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Brexit vote was subsequent to indyref1. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. It voted a whopping 62% remain 38% leave.

    Right there you have the core of a strong argument, the more so as you go into the constitutional implications of Brexit which fundamentally altered Scotland's position.

    There isn't, Westminster is sovereign, Boris will refuse a legal indyref2 while he is PM and Unionist Scots would boycott any such illegal referendum
    You haven't read what I put.

    Westminster is not necessarily legally sovereign according to the two stage idea proposed by none other than Sir John Major, the former PM and leader of your beloved tories. Re-read the link.
    It is and has been ever since the 2 Parliaments of Scotland and England were merged into 1 Parliament at Westminster in 1707, Holyrood was merely a creation of Westminster in the late 1990s and legally could be suspended tomorrow, even if politically that might be risky.

    Major unfortunately has just become a diehard Remainer
    Like you.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,794
    gealbhan said:

    I am delighted to report that our Riverford delivery has arrived as planned. Sprouts and parsnips ready for Friday.

    Are you sure you want to be smug, boastful and bragging over this at this moment in time? In this world we live in? Is this your seasonal understand of how to be jolly? Do you appreciate how it is coming across?
    That`s a bit unfair - a bit of upbeat-ness is not amiss. And I`m always delighted to hear about Sandy`s groceries.

    Meat and two veg and stuff.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,990
    New thread
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
    Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.

    Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.

    If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
  • Options

    NEW THREAD

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,281

    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    You seem to have got over your recent ‘blocking a referendum would be undemocratic’ spasm. Can we now expect you to participate in HYUFD’s baton wielding B Specials for the Union?
    I don't think indyref2 is legally dependent on a House of Commons mandate. If you read the legal arguments for a referendum, regardless of what Westminster thinks, it seems reasonably strong.

    Before anyone jumps in with 'that's what it says in law' I would point you to some of the complex arguments being advanced which may well by-pass Westminster.
    If Westminster refuses one it would have as much effect as the Catalan referendum in defiance of Madrid, ie none
    Spain is used to Franco authoritarianism.

    Britain is a proud centuries old democracy.

    If the mother of all Parliament's turns to Francoism then that would be to betray everything that is Great about Britain.
    Wrong, Spain never even allowed Catalonia one legal independence vote.

    Westminster allowed the Scots one in 2014, they voted 55% to stay in the UK in that 'once in a generation' referendum
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,281

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
    I respect the will of the Scottish voters in 2021.

    It is their choice. Not yours. Not 2014s. 2021 trumps 2014.
    I find myself agreeing with you and at least you are being consistent (cf. your remarks on Northern Ireland) unlike HYUFD who simply bends everything he can to backup his view. The result in HYUFD's case is breathtaking inconsistency.
    Thank you.

    For me democracy is the most important principle we have.

    More important than left or right.
    More important than leave or remain.
    More important than success or failure.
    More important than boom or bust.
    More important than war or peace.

    If we lose democracy we lose the ability to change course. Nothing is more important than that.
    No it isn't, otherwise you would not be trying to impose a No Deal Brexit when not a single poll shows a majority of UK voters want one and when the winning 2019 Tory manifesto promised a basic trade deal with the EU
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,942
    edited December 2020

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Stocky said:

    Yup. His second notable mistake after the handling of the Corbyn dispute, in what's been a good year for him overall. He better hope that a deal at least partially protects him from the fallout.
    I disagree. if there is an extension to the transition period Starmer is going to attack Johnson mercilessly for failing to deliver, thus sending a message to red-wallers and others that his Brexit-blocking days are over.
    LD revival in that case.
    Starmer can easily afford a LD revival in Hampstead, Camden, Islington, Manchester, Oxford and Cambridge etc as Labour will easily still win most of those seats anyway.

    What he cannot afford is for Labour to lose Red Wall voters again by being seen to block full delivery of Brexit, hence his position of no extension to the transition period but get the Deal done first to avoid No Deal
    I don't agree at all. If Starmer starts to be seen not only as maintaining a hands-off approach to Brexit, but positively championing its acceleration, he'll start to lose huge swathes of voters in all sorts of places all over the country. It's easy to forget because of press coverage, but the majority have been against Brexit since 2017. Many of those will tolerate but never endorse.
    Disagree with you on this. Let's not repeat the substance of the Benn Act mistake which served up the election on a plate to Johnson. He and the Tories own Brexit. They promised a deal. If he is up against the wire now - faced with a choice of agreeing a deal his headbangers won't like, or an extension, or no deal - do NOT help him out.

    "You said you'd get a deal by year end. Get a deal by year end." - should be the line. End of.

    Johnson has been utterly ruthless in his use of Brexit to fuck over everyone else. Time to reciprocate.
    Well, that's broadly what Starmer's been saying already so far this year, and it's a reasonable strategy. The specifics of saying you actively oppose an extension is different to that, though - especially in the current climate - and carries probably unnecessary political risks.
    I certainly would not want to see Labour voting against an extension, no.

    But what's key imo is Starmer doesn't agitate for it. He leaves Johnson on the hook and lets HIM propose an extension if he wants to go that route. The Johnson extension. The Johnson delay to Getting Brexit Done. I'm ok with this.

    Although as it happens I think Johnson would prefer to do the deal than do that.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
    I respect the will of the Scottish voters in 2021.

    It is their choice. Not yours. Not 2014s. 2021 trumps 2014.
    I find myself agreeing with you and at least you are being consistent (cf. your remarks on Northern Ireland) unlike HYUFD who simply bends everything he can to backup his view. The result in HYUFD's case is breathtaking inconsistency.
    Thank you.

    For me democracy is the most important principle we have.

    More important than left or right.
    More important than leave or remain.
    More important than success or failure.
    More important than boom or bust.
    More important than war or peace.

    If we lose democracy we lose the ability to change course. Nothing is more important than that.
    No it isn't, otherwise you would not be trying to impose a No Deal Brexit when not a single poll shows a majority of UK voters want one and when the winning 2019 Tory manifesto promised a basic trade deal with the EU
    Democracy is about putting votes in ballot boxes, not opinion polls.
  • Options
    NEW. THREAD.
  • Options
    gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Stocky said:

    gealbhan said:

    I am delighted to report that our Riverford delivery has arrived as planned. Sprouts and parsnips ready for Friday.

    Are you sure you want to be smug, boastful and bragging over this at this moment in time? In this world we live in? Is this your seasonal understand of how to be jolly? Do you appreciate how it is coming across?
    That`s a bit unfair - a bit of upbeat-ness is not amiss. And I`m always delighted to hear about Sandy`s groceries.

    Meat and two veg and stuff.
    What about the people in India living on railway lines and rubbish dumps whilst they have a space programme? What about the hungry young Rashfords in the UK right now whilst we have a space programme?

    Do you think Jesus Christ would see my posting as harsh?
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,127
    Stocky said:

    No Deal will not be Labour's responsibility, it will be entirely on the Tories. They got the majority, they got the Government. Their problem now

    Why did you say Starmer has made a mistake earlier then?
    It was clear from the last but one PMQs that Brexit is comfort zone territory for the Tories and deeply problematic for Labour. Starmer's problem is how to vote for a specific outcome you know for a fact is a disaster, because you are respecting the decision already made in principle, without looking utterly hypocritical. The Tories are living in fantasy land and are completely untroubled by these scruples.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,233
    edited December 2020
    malcolmg said:

    Alistair said:

    I mean, there's obvious limitations to the data on the Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard but here are the figures from the Official UK government Coronavirus Dashboard.




    Cue Agent Pee going on a ranting rampage against the pro Nat Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard.
    Carlotta caught lying yet again. Unionists getting ever more desperate with their porkie pies. Those damn SNP beggars will just not make the mistakes that Tories do, infuriating.
    He wasn't lying, Sturgeon is deliberately using statistics that point away from the truth to push her agenda. She is doing so based on the poorer testing rate that her Government has achieved in Scotland.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Clearly we need to get testing for Covid on frontiers arranged,

    malcolmg said:

    Alistair said:

    I mean, there's obvious limitations to the data on the Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard but here are the figures from the Official UK government Coronavirus Dashboard.




    Cue Agent Pee going on a ranting rampage against the pro Nat Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard.
    Carlotta caught lying yet again. Unionists getting ever more desperate with their porkie pies. Those damn SNP beggars will just not make the mistakes that Tories do, infuriating.
    He wasn't lying, Sturgeon is deliberately using statistics that point away from the truth to push her agenda. She is doing so based on the poorer testing rate that her Government has achieved in Scotland.
    Sturgeon keeps telling us that England has a worse #Covid_19 infection rate than Scotland.

    It's time she published the source of her imaginary info as it flies in the face of all the official government agency websites.


    All Official Government Agency Websites say... England has a worse Covid19 infection rate than Scotland
  • Options
    FlannerFlanner Posts: 420
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anyone who denies the right of self determination to the Scots is an enemy of democracy and democracy is more important than party politics or the future of the union.

    So Philip has now confirmed he is closer to the SNP not only than the Tories but now Labour too, and has no respect for the vote of 55% of Scots to stay in the UK just 6 years ago.

    I am sure TUD can arrange to get you your SNP membership card while you continue to be perfectly happy to deny the majority of UK voters who oppose No Deal a say in your Zeal for WTO terms!
    I respect the will of the Scottish voters in 2021.

    It is their choice. Not yours. Not 2014s. 2021 trumps 2014.
    I find myself agreeing with you and at least you are being consistent (cf. your remarks on Northern Ireland) unlike HYUFD who simply bends everything he can to backup his view. The result in HYUFD's case is breathtaking inconsistency.
    Thank you.

    For me democracy is the most important principle we have.

    More important than left or right.
    More important than leave or remain.
    More important than success or failure.
    More important than boom or bust.
    More important than war or peace.

    If we lose democracy we lose the ability to change course. Nothing is more important than that.
    No it isn't, otherwise you would not be trying to impose a No Deal Brexit when not a single poll shows a majority of UK voters want one and when the winning 2019 Tory manifesto promised a basic trade deal with the EU
    Never thought I'd congratulate HYFUD for perspicacity when it doesn't serve his own ends.
    But it IS worth reminding the deluded that he HAS been consistently pro-Leave.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,686
    Alistair said:

    I mean, there's obvious limitations to the data on the Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard but here are the figures from the Official UK government Coronavirus Dashboard.




    I think the best way of gauging actual infections is the number of deaths and the ONS/NRS statistics are quite similar for the death certificate numbers. There's too much variance in testing regimes to get any kind of real insight.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    HYUFD said:
    Unionist desperation knows no bounds, tag team of the great clunking duffer and Bozo the Clown, independence will be at short odds for sure.
    Seems you are going to have a longer wait for indy2 with Brown and Starmer teaming up and refusing to support it through the HOC

    Dear Dear G, I thought you had some self awareness on politics. If you think an aged useless hated hasbeen and an empty suit London millionaire pretend ToryLabourite will stop or even delay Independence then you are barking.
    I’ll put you down as a ‘Maybe’ Malc.

    Honestly, I haven’t seen you this exercised since the defeat in 2014.
    I am always this exercised when mince like that is spouted.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,554

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Alistair said:

    I mean, there's obvious limitations to the data on the Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard but here are the figures from the Official UK government Coronavirus Dashboard.




    Cue Agent Pee going on a ranting rampage against the pro Nat Official UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard.
    Carlotta caught lying yet again. Unionists getting ever more desperate with their porkie pies. Those damn SNP beggars will just not make the mistakes that Tories do, infuriating.
    So 1 in 100 is "around half" of 1 in 95?

    Nats & maths, eh?

    And I see today we've gone from "around half" to "volatile"

    https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1341000949222023168?s=20
    How evil can someone be, gloating and slavering over more people dying of a virus just because it feeds your hatred of Scotland. You really are a vile odious creature. How could anyone wish for a country to have more virus, you should be ashamed of yourself taking such glee at families misfortunes.
    Does that logic apply to Sturgeon boasting that COVID in Scotland was “around half” of England?
    I don't believe she was boasting
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,138
    HYUFD said:
    That would be my position too. No point letting Johnson off the hook with moderates... although if Starmer suggested an extension and Johnson was forced to take one, come 31st December, that would tee him up nicely for the ERG.
This discussion has been closed.