Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I think, for me, it`s primarily a matter of suitability for the office. The fact that he was unqualified and supremely unsuitable was obvious before he became president. And he hasn`t disappointed. He`s trashed the country`s reputation abroad - which it will take quite a while to recover from - partly because he is an easy subject to ridicule because he is inherently ridiculous.
Did you listen to James Comey on Sophie Ridge on Sunday?
The Trump Presidency
It's a cake made of awful policies, awful implementation of the awful policies and an icing made out of incompetent corruption in awful implantation of the awful policies. With layers of supporters who are substantially fascist and racist. The whole doused in insurrectionist and violent rhetoric, provoking and encouraging repeated criminality.
The cherry on the cake is the stupid Twitter addiction.
That's a good one, Malmesbury. Like that a lot. And it's as close to 100% objective as anything can ever be. Important not to go looking for "balance" on Trump. There isn't any.
Surely awful policies awfully implemented is better than awful policies efficiently implemented ?
Unless the awful implementation was itself an awful thing to witness. Like when the electric chair malfunctions and they have to start again.
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
What when letters for under 80s only went out yesterday.....
I guess there could be a gap between the 80s being done and the new cohort being invited. A sort of invite-lag?
You may be right, but I hope not. That would not be good planning.
It doesn't really matter that much anyway. Read the news. The schools are not going back this side of Easter. The pubs won't be opening until the summer at the earliest.
You are not getting your freedoms back for another five months at least. And even then we're talking Tier 2.
For a while.
***PREDICTION POST*** No UK pubs will open before 21 June, says Contrarian.
I suspect this post won't age well.
Interesting when do you think,
The schools will be open in the UK full time and
The pubs will revert to normal licensing hours everywhere in the UK with no restrictions.
Lets see who is nearest the effing bull
No chance of pubs before May bank holiday (which off top my head is 5th May). Might even be the next bank holiday at end of May.
I think you are more likely to be right with late June than any predictions before May.
Quite. Of course there's going to be an almighty argument about this in the tory parliamentary party in the spring. A massive argument.
Because the government has said the vaccines are the answer.
If the vaccines are the answer then we don;t need lockdown when they are rolled out,
And if we still have lockdown when they are rolled out then the government must be fibbing.
A rapidly brewing problem is the socialising that will take place by those who are vaccinated (not in closed pubs obviously - but at people's houses).
As Chris Snowdon pointed out, stopping people who have had the vaccine from going back to normal life indicates you do not have confidence in the solution you are offering.
Unless its not a solution and you are fibbing. Or it is a solution and you have another agenda.
I think the answer is that there is a great deal of hope that it is the solution and some trial data that indicates it probably will be but still plenty of unknowns.
The more immediate answer is that we know the vaccines take two weeks to kick in and that a single shot only provides partial protection. I think most people would understand that if they were actually told.
So, the government now admits that it deliberately and for purely abstract reasons decided to severely damage the UK music and culture industry, a big sector for the UK and important to our tourist industry. Here's the 'Culture Minister' (by which they seem to mean the 'Wrecking Culture Minister') explaining why:
They are literally insane, aren't they? Was there a single referendum voter in the entire UK who objected to UK and EU musicians being able to put on concert tours in each other's countries without a load of ludicrous paperwork and expensive carnets?
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Maggie may be the greatest politician to have ever lived, with BJ a close second.
Her BJ was a close second to whose, exactly?
My wife and I went for a romantic weekend to a hotel years back.
Very nice, double bath and extra large shower etc etc
They had to ruin in by saying Maggie and Dennis used to stay in that room...........
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
So, the government now admits that it deliberately and for purely abstract reasons decided to severely damage the UK music and culture industry, a big sector for the UK and important to our tourist industry. Here's the 'Culture Minister' (by which they seem to mean the 'Wrecking Culture Minister') explaining why:
They are literally insane, aren't they? Was there a single referendum voter in the entire UK who objected to UK and EU musicians being able to put on concert tours in each other's countries without a load of ludicrous paperwork and expensive carnets?
Well, it's a spoke in the radiohead wheel.
I think what probably happened is that the EU offered to allow UK musicians to tour, but wasn't prepared to limit those rules to just musicians but as part of a broader and less acceptable (to the Gov't) package, probably on FoM generally
Because of lags in reporting data over weekends, very often sunday/monday have fewer reported deaths, which then catch up on Tuesday (and Wed to some extent) giving the impression of a jump in deaths. Compare the date of death charts with date of reporting (on https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/). Date of reporting is lumpier data than date of death.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Do ya think he’s Scexy?
- No way!
If that's his game, trying to lure me in with that, I can assure you he is failing. He is failing.
So, the government now admits that it deliberately and for purely abstract reasons decided to severely damage the UK music and culture industry, a big sector for the UK and important to our tourist industry. Here's the 'Culture Minister' (by which they seem to mean the 'Wrecking Culture Minister') explaining why:
They are literally insane, aren't they? Was there a single referendum voter in the entire UK who objected to UK and EU musicians being able to put on concert tours in each other's countries without a load of ludicrous paperwork and expensive carnets?
Well, it's a spoke in the radiohead wheel.
Tough on Euro Techno, tough on the causes of... We have our own fine traditional native Drill scene. We don't want any of that foreign noise over here.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Do ya think he’s Scexy?
- No way!
If that's his game, trying to lure me in with that, I can assure you he is failing. He is failing.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Maggie may be the greatest politician to have ever lived, with BJ a close second.
Her BJ was a close second to whose, exactly?
My wife and I went for a romantic weekend to a hotel years back.
Very nice, double bath and extra large shower etc etc
They had to ruin in by saying Maggie and Dennis used to stay in that room...........
Not good numbers on vaccination front...England only 171k yesterday (I wonder if like deaths, we are seeing a weekend effect in reporting, but still, not enough).
Absolutely dire numbers. What has gone wrong?
If the numbers seem weird it's probably something to do with the way they're being reported.
Is it possible that demand under 80 is not as overwhelming as the government thought?
Which leaves Johnson with a bit of a problem....
What when letters for under 80s only went out yesterday.....
I guess there could be a gap between the 80s being done and the new cohort being invited. A sort of invite-lag?
You may be right, but I hope not. That would not be good planning.
It doesn't really matter that much anyway. Read the news. The schools are not going back this side of Easter. The pubs won't be opening until the summer at the earliest.
You are not getting your freedoms back for another five months at least. And even then we're talking Tier 2.
For a while.
***PREDICTION POST*** No UK pubs will open before 21 June, says Contrarian.
I suspect this post won't age well.
Interesting when do you think,
The schools will be open in the UK full time and
The pubs will revert to normal licensing hours everywhere in the UK with no restrictions.
Lets see who is nearest the effing bull
By Easter the pubs will be open, maybe with some restrictions at first but increasingly reduced. I would expect pubs to be largely back to normal (barring areas of special concern) by May.
Though I disagree with 21 June being the start of summer. Meteorologically (which is what matters) all of June is summer.
Indeed/ Full opening of ALL of the UK's pubs, restaurants and clubs with no restrictions? not before July I reckon. If then. If ever TBH.
Lets see what Anabozina's prediction is, if that person has actually got the nads to actually make one. Which I doubt.
Easter sounds about right to me, not without restrictions, but open. And hopefully in good weather so we can enjoy beer gardens without too many annoying rules.
I think your forecast of 21 June for any pub opening will be out by a fair way.
Maybe for the type of opening you refer to. With restrictions. But for all UK opening with no restrictions anywhere, I reckon 21 June is conservative, to be honest.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Maggie may be the greatest politician to have ever lived, with BJ a close second.
Her BJ was a close second to whose, exactly?
My wife and I went for a romantic weekend to a hotel years back.
Very nice, double bath and extra large shower etc etc
They had to ruin in by saying Maggie and Dennis used to stay in that room...........
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
I liked that one he did at Gettysburg. Things were still in the balance then, so I was feeling anxious and tender, prone to ups and downs of emotion, just basically feeling like a girl much of the time, and listening to that speech, plus with booze on the go, led to a choking up. Very glad nobody was filming me.
Probably the best speech ever made in the Gettysburg area, is that what you're saying?
I wonder how many members of the public honestly believe that more people die from Covid-19 on a Tuesday. That's the problem with this way of reporting the data.
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
That'll learn him to moan about being silenced. Not only has he a right to a platform, apparently he's a right not to be told he's a blithering, entitled fool. This free speech is so confusing.
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
I liked that one he did at Gettysburg. Things were still in the balance then, so I was feeling anxious and tender, prone to ups and downs of emotion, just basically feeling like a girl much of the time, and listening to that speech, plus with booze on the go, led to a choking up. Very glad nobody was filming me.
Probably the best speech ever made in the Gettysburg area, is that what you're saying?
To be fair, the previous attempt at best speech at Gettysburg was widely rubbished, initially.
Mainly because it wasn't 3 and half hours long, IIRC.
Local authority level data will be tricky as it is being rolled out by the NHS which has different boundaries. Publishing it by CCG or PCN (or indeed the level above CCG which I'm not sure of the name of) would be easier. The fact that the data has not been published does not mean it does not exist.
NHS data I access routinely has local authority of residence, so it would not be surprising to see data on vaccinations by local authority.
Not all that useful for anything in particular though, for the reasons you point out - good/bad will not be something controlled by local authorities.
Welsh Parliament member Alun Davies is on the brink of suspension after holding a drinks party until 2 am in the Welsh Parliament’s Members’ Tea Room, Guido understands. Davies had been a forceful critic of the Cummings Barnard Castle affair. Guido is told other members may have been there too. Developing…
UPDATE: ITV is now reporting that Senedd officials are investigating the incident. Guido hears the investigation was sparked by the assembly’s catering staff who complained they were put in a difficult position as they tried to close the tearoom at 6 pm as per the rules
UPDATE II: Tory MS’s in attendance are understood to have been Tory leader Paul Davies, Chief Whip Darren Millar and Nick Ramsay.
UPDATE III: Alun Davies has been suspended. Full statement from Senedd Labour Group Spokesperson:
“A member has been suspended from the privileges of Senedd Labour Group membership while an investigation takes place into this alleged incident.”
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
I liked that one he did at Gettysburg. Things were still in the balance then, so I was feeling anxious and tender, prone to ups and downs of emotion, just basically feeling like a girl much of the time, and listening to that speech, plus with booze on the go, led to a choking up. Very glad nobody was filming me.
Probably the best speech ever made in the Gettysburg area, is that what you're saying?
To be fair, the previous attempt at best speech at Gettysburg was widely rubbished, initially.
Mainly because it wasn't 3 and half hours long, IIRC.
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
I liked that one he did at Gettysburg. Things were still in the balance then, so I was feeling anxious and tender, prone to ups and downs of emotion, just basically feeling like a girl much of the time, and listening to that speech, plus with booze on the go, led to a choking up. Very glad nobody was filming me.
Probably the best speech ever made in the Gettysburg area, is that what you're saying?
To be fair, the previous attempt at best speech at Gettysburg was widely rubbished, initially.
Mainly because it wasn't 3 and half hours long, IIRC.
A piss take of the Daily Mail and other journos who didn't and still haven't realised that there's a weekend/bank holiday effect on reporting figures.
They'd see a decrease Saturday/Sunday/Monday then report Tuesday's catch up figures as a massive increase.
I had no idea journalists were not aware of that (or pretend not to), would have thought the whole country was aware of data lags the amount it gets talked about.
Two US Army National Guard members have been removed from duty during Joe Biden's presidential inauguration because of ties to far-right militias, according to Associated Press.
A US Army official and a senior US intelligence official confirmed the decision to AP on the condition of anonymity due to Defense Department media regulations.
They did not say what fringe group the Guard members belonged to or what unit they served in.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Not sure about that. Given HYUFD's fondness for a previous PM, Rod would have to change the name of his best song from Maggie May to Maggie Will Definitely, TINA.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
The identification of HYUFD with Rod Stewart is just the sort of offbeat entertainment anyone might ask for on a drab weekday afternoon.
Rod Stewart is the person I tend to first think of when I think about celebrity. Reason being because he used to eat at a chinese restaurant that I also used a lot and I often saw him there with his entourage. Always a frisson around his table and you could tell he was very comfortable with the whole star thing. I don't mean this in a bad way, just that he liked it.
I wonder if @HYUFD is actually a Rod Stewart fan. That would be quite something if he is, given what we now know.
I think vaccine data runs two days in arrears the same as case data. Today's data relates to the majority of vaccines carried out on Sunday with just a small percentage of Monday's numbers being reported IMO.
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
Well more fool you then. Because that analysis was correct and even though I agree he didn't give a shit, it doesn't mean those problems have gone away and if you ignore them because "Trump" then we may not be so lucky next time and might find the next person to use these issues without really caring about them is a lot brighter and a lot more convincing than Trump and also, because of that, a lot more dangerous.
So you should be very interested. Otherwise you are a big part of the problem.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Maggie may be the greatest politician to have ever lived, with BJ a close second.
A piss take of the Daily Mail and other journos who didn't and still haven't realised that there's a weekend/bank holiday effect on reporting figures.
They'd see a decrease Saturday/Sunday/Monday then report Tuesday's catch up figures as a massive increase.
I had no idea journalists were not aware of that (or pretend not to), would have thought the whole country was aware of data lags the amount it gets talked about.
Going back to the vax data, there are now two "low number" days in a row. So I suspect there is a 2-day lag and today's are Sunday's. It would mean the 275,000 UK jabs reported on Sunday are Friday's. Mostly, as it definitely says "by reporting day" so it could conceivably cover a number of days.
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
That's a bit needy and pitying. The main issue with Lord Sumption is he keeps saying the same thing over and over again. And given how lockdown skeptics have repeatedly ignored or misrepresented things, it's a bit rich to cry about Lord Sumption when his articles have been shared hundreds of times on here alone.
A piss take of the Daily Mail and other journos who didn't and still haven't realised that there's a weekend/bank holiday effect on reporting figures.
They'd see a decrease Saturday/Sunday/Monday then report Tuesday's catch up figures as a massive increase.
I had no idea journalists were not aware of that (or pretend not to), would have thought the whole country was aware of data lags the amount it gets talked about.
Going back to the vax data, there are now two "low number" days in a row. So I suspect there is a 2-day lag and today's are Sunday's. It would mean the 275,000 UK jabs reported on Sunday are Friday's. Mostly, as it definitely says "by reporting day" so it could conceivably cover a number of days.
Hopefully there will be a plot of "vaccines per date administered" coming soon.
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
I mean just look at this correction the Telegraph had to do, he consistently gets basic facts wrong.
Lord Sumption: The simple truth is that lockdowns do not work
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated that ' in March Imperial College produced their now "discredited" figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken'. In fact, Imperial College predicted 250,000 UK deaths without further intervention. We have amended the opening paragraph.
Local authority level data will be tricky as it is being rolled out by the NHS which has different boundaries. Publishing it by CCG or PCN (or indeed the level above CCG which I'm not sure of the name of) would be easier. The fact that the data has not been published does not mean it does not exist.
NHS data I access routinely has local authority of residence, so it would not be surprising to see data on vaccinations by local authority.
Not all that useful for anything in particular though, for the reasons you point out - good/bad will not be something controlled by local authorities.
Welsh Parliament member Alun Davies is on the brink of suspension after holding a drinks party until 2 am in the Welsh Parliament’s Members’ Tea Room, Guido understands. Davies had been a forceful critic of the Cummings Barnard Castle affair. Guido is told other members may have been there too. Developing…
UPDATE: ITV is now reporting that Senedd officials are investigating the incident. Guido hears the investigation was sparked by the assembly’s catering staff who complained they were put in a difficult position as they tried to close the tearoom at 6 pm as per the rules
UPDATE II: Tory MS’s in attendance are understood to have been Tory leader Paul Davies, Chief Whip Darren Millar and Nick Ramsay.
UPDATE III: Alun Davies has been suspended. Full statement from Senedd Labour Group Spokesperson:
“A member has been suspended from the privileges of Senedd Labour Group membership while an investigation takes place into this alleged incident.”
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
I liked that one he did at Gettysburg. Things were still in the balance then, so I was feeling anxious and tender, prone to ups and downs of emotion, just basically feeling like a girl much of the time, and listening to that speech, plus with booze on the go, led to a choking up. Very glad nobody was filming me.
Probably the best speech ever made in the Gettysburg area, is that what you're saying?
To be fair, the previous attempt at best speech at Gettysburg was widely rubbished, initially.
Mainly because it wasn't 3 and half hours long, IIRC.
IIRC? Exactly how old are you, Malmesbury?
Malmesbury is no ordinary poster, I have long sensed this. He is as old as the Hills and is also able to shapeshift at will. Hence the olympian wisdom, ancient and modern, science and arts, dispensed on a regular basis, plus the BIG giveaway - the fact he has personally known and had quality conversations with every raving left wing hypocrite who has ever lived.
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
I mean just look at this correction the Telegraph had to do, he consistently gets basic facts wrong.
Lord Sumption: The simple truth is that lockdowns do not work
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated that ' in March Imperial College produced their now "discredited" figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken'. In fact, Imperial College predicted 250,000 UK deaths without further intervention. We have amended the opening paragraph.
Lord Sumption is as much an expert on pandemics as I am an expert on the awesomeness of putting pineapple on pizza.
He seems to be a case study in how undoubted intellect in one field does not make an expert in another - and how even the great intellects make common, petty errors (or delibately misrepresent) when they are pushing a position rather than care about assessing things.
I wouldn't even mind that so much, I own several of his books, if not for the 'I'm being picked on' whinging like a baby stuff that people indulge in.
If we were previously just being used as a conduit then it reduces pressure on our ports, on our roads, emissions of particles etc on our roads. Its a good adaptation to have our roads and ports used by those who actually want to use them. 👍🏻
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
I mean just look at this correction the Telegraph had to do, he consistently gets basic facts wrong.
Lord Sumption: The simple truth is that lockdowns do not work
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated that ' in March Imperial College produced their now "discredited" figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken'. In fact, Imperial College predicted 250,000 UK deaths without further intervention. We have amended the opening paragraph.
Trump bears probably 70-80% of the responsibility for the divisions in America. I would agree he is without doubt the worst President in history.
But the Democrats and their supporters also bear at least some responsibility. Although they were no where near as blatant as Trump, never the less they refused to accept that he had won fairly and used every possible tactic to try and undermine his Presidency. In this they were particularly stupid. They should have realised they would not get rid of him before 2020 but in being so partisan and refusing to accept his victory was valid they sowed the seeds for the divisions which, I personally believe, are now insurmountable.
Quick question for you Richard and you are one of the few posters on here that recognise that the Democrats bear a lot of the responsibility for the division in the US. Why exactly is he the worst President? Do you think the US was a land of milk and honey before, and everyone was happy? My view has always been that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
I'm not having a go and it's maybe unfair to ask you specifically but people hear the word "Trump" and automatically say "he's so bad". But why exactly is he so bad? What has he done exactly that was so uniquely awful in the annals of US history?
I don't think the US was a land of milk and honey before but Trump as President had a job to do in at least trying to unite the country after his victory. He made no effort to do this at all. Indeed he went out of his way to try and antagonise and attack anyone, even the most reasonable, who opposed him and his policies. He could have achieved much that he set out to do - perhaps even more than he did - if he had not been such an egotistical bastard who saw every criticism whether directed at him or his policies as being a personal affront. I can't think of any candidate in living memory who was less suited to being President.
Yes, I agree. What marked Trump out as different is that he didn't even try to pretend to unite the country.
In democracies, when X wins following a divisive election campaign, they always follow their victory by saying things like: "now is the time to unite the nation. I will govern for everybody, both those who voted for me, and those who didn't." But not Trump. Those who didn't vote for him could f*** right off.
He spent day 1 in a furious lying tetch about the size of his inauguration crowd. That was as good as it got. And I personally don't have the remotest interest in hearing about Donald Trump being "correct in his analysis" of various things plaguing the American worker such as globalization. Reason I'm not interested is that neither was he. Trump gave zero shits about anything but Trump. He was all bad. Completely and utterly and on every level. There are no redeeming aspects or features. If you go for "balance" on this one you end up writing drivel.
I'm waiting to see Trump announce that his inauguration crowd was so much bigger than Biden's (as it will be due to Covid and the lockdown that Trump has forced in Washington making attending it virtually impossible).
Without a doubt. Poor Joe, he will not be getting much of a Big Day. His speech will be interesting though. He's not a top class orator but he did make some good ones during the campaign. Perhaps he'll be tempted by some Gerald Ford, seek to turn the page using elevated healing rhetoric.
"Our long national nightmare is over. The fat orange fucker has gone."
I think that the best speech I have heard from him was on 6th January. More of that would not go amiss.
I liked that one he did at Gettysburg. Things were still in the balance then, so I was feeling anxious and tender, prone to ups and downs of emotion, just basically feeling like a girl much of the time, and listening to that speech, plus with booze on the go, led to a choking up. Very glad nobody was filming me.
Probably the best speech ever made in the Gettysburg area, is that what you're saying?
To be fair, the previous attempt at best speech at Gettysburg was widely rubbished, initially.
Mainly because it wasn't 3 and half hours long, IIRC.
IIRC? Exactly how old are you, Malmesbury?
Malmesbury is no ordinary poster, I have long sensed this. He is as old as the Hills and is also able to shapeshift at will. Hence the olympian wisdom, ancient and modern, science and arts, dispensed on a regular basis, plus the BIG giveaway - the fact he has personally known and had quality conversations with every raving left wing hypocrite who has ever lived.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Maggie may be the greatest politician to have ever lived, with BJ a close second.
Her BJ was a close second to whose, exactly?
My wife and I went for a romantic weekend to a hotel years back.
Very nice, double bath and extra large shower etc etc
They had to ruin in by saying Maggie and Dennis used to stay in that room...........
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
I mean just look at this correction the Telegraph had to do, he consistently gets basic facts wrong.
Lord Sumption: The simple truth is that lockdowns do not work
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated that ' in March Imperial College produced their now "discredited" figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken'. In fact, Imperial College predicted 250,000 UK deaths without further intervention. We have amended the opening paragraph.
Lord Sumption is as much an expert on pandemics as I am an expert on the awesomeness of putting pineapple on pizza.
But he went to Eton so has a God-given right to pontificate on all subjects.
It's not an Eton thing, look at the output of embarrassing things Peter Hitchens has said, I'll never forget his mistaken belief on all things Stochastic.
Local authority level data will be tricky as it is being rolled out by the NHS which has different boundaries. Publishing it by CCG or PCN (or indeed the level above CCG which I'm not sure of the name of) would be easier. The fact that the data has not been published does not mean it does not exist.
NHS data I access routinely has local authority of residence, so it would not be surprising to see data on vaccinations by local authority.
Not all that useful for anything in particular though, for the reasons you point out - good/bad will not be something controlled by local authorities.
The update process for the website, by a PHE, is not hypersonic.
The really interesting data would be cases (and then hospitalizations and deaths) split by vaccinated and unvaccinated. Presumably they're already collecting that and insiders are getting a preview.
Yes, perhaps so. Interesting to see the next poll.
I think it'll be pretty fluid on an moe level until they choose a new leader. There's a better than fair chance that they'll supplant the SCons as second party when it comes to May imho.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
Don't donate materials to Italian museums A 500-year-old painting has been discovered in a flat in Italy and returned to a museum - where staff were unaware it had even been stolen...
officials were not aware it had been stolen because "the room where the painting is kept has not been open for three months" due to the coronavirus pandemic.
It is not known when the artwork was taken as no one had reported it missing, but the museum said it was in its possession as recently as last January.
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
That's an awful article that entirely misses the point. Sumption explicitly said to a 29-year-old woman with life-shortening cancer, on TV, that her life was 'less valuable' than, say, his grandchildren. That sort of analysis of QALY is fine in a theoretical or abstract discussion, and of course there is an argument to be had. And he might even be right. But the gross insensitivity of saying this directly to a cancer sufferer is grossly insensitive and suggests he's a crass boor.
I think vaccine data runs two days in arrears the same as case data. Today's data relates to the majority of vaccines carried out on Sunday with just a small percentage of Monday's numbers being reported IMO.
Looks plausible for England, but not the others. Scotland's 19K today is the highest so far, at least if you ignore yesterday's 40K that followed two days without reporting. No obvious pattern for NI or Wales either yet. There might be quite inconsistent reporting lags, which maybe average out more for England.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
"Lord Sumption: the monstering of a lockdown sceptic He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy. Luke Gittos"
I mean just look at this correction the Telegraph had to do, he consistently gets basic facts wrong.
Lord Sumption: The simple truth is that lockdowns do not work
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated that ' in March Imperial College produced their now "discredited" figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken'. In fact, Imperial College predicted 250,000 UK deaths without further intervention. We have amended the opening paragraph.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Not sure about that. Given HYUFD's fondness for a previous PM, Rod would have to change the name of his best song from Maggie May to Maggie Will Definitely, TINA.
- Political slants on Rod songs. That's a goer.
Hot Takes. Tories Failing. I Was Only Voting (my dear). The First Cuts Are The Deepest. The Right's Uptight. What Made Bill Walker Famous.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
What are your thoughts on Alun Davies' drinking exploits? Throw him out! It is unfortunate that Drakeford is a teetotaler!
Labour's Alun Davies has been suspended from the Labour AM group for drinking alcohol in the Senedd, despite a ban.
He and the three Tories should all resign.
ITV News hub has only specified Alun Davies of the Labour group.
Reported elsewhere that it was three Conservative AMs and one Labour AM. Last I heard the Labour one has been suspended by his party and nothing's been done about the Conservatives. I'd expect that to change fairly shortly.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
IIRC we used charge £10 a day for every EU truck to use our roads, was introduced by the coalition.
But, what is the advantage of having these Irish trucks trundle through Wales & England to the continent?
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
It is an excellent point and of course the sea routes will take longer and will be weather affected
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
Sort of, in that they don't make it clear that the deaths didn't actually happen in the last 24 hours, but not really, because they make a point of comparing the figure with last Tuesday's, rather than yesterday's.
I'm, er, no viral immunologist but I would have thought that the chances of a single dose being good or not good were equal at around 50%.
The government for very sound and understandable reasons has jettisoned for the moment the second dose but the fact remains that no trial has been done on single dosage and it is at best speculation that the efficacy is this that or the other.
Which is why a large number of viral immunologists are nervous or even disagree with the decision. But it is after all only a few weeks delay so people will manage. Oh there is the effect on that vulnerable category of people's mental health (on the bus off the bus) but I'm sure the bigger picture is more important.
Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024.
So most Scots would therefore be fine with Boris refusing an indyref for the rest of this Parliament (though that poll is a Comres poll not the Survation poll from today).
On today's Yougov poll Starmer would then become PM with SNP support and he can give the SNP their indyref along with devomax, it would no longer be Boris' problem.
'within' does not necessarily mean they will be happy with after 2024 at all. You have jumped to a conclusion there.
43% of Scots do not even want another indy referendum for at least another 10 years, it would only take about 20% of that 57% to be happy for no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024 for a majority of Scots to support no indyref until after the next UK general election in 2024.
Regardless, the decision is one for Boris as UK PM, he has ruled one out so there will not be one until 2024 at the earliest if Starmer becomes PM.
See my other reply that deals with the logic of your post.
The logic is our constitution is based on the sovereignty of Crown in Parliament so even if 99% of Scots wanted one by 2024 Boris with a UK majority of 80 at Westminster can refuse.
The polling is just a matter of how easy it will be to refuse, Boris will still refuse it regardless as long as he is PM whatever happens at Holyrood in May
You are not getting this are you. There is nothing wrong in what you say here, but you made a statement earlier as a fact. It was not a fact it was an opinion. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion, but an opinion nevertheless.
I was pointing out why it was an opinion and not a fact by applying logic to it to demonstrate why.
We have been here before. You seem to think that logic is some esoterical topic restricted to mathematicians. It isn't. They may be better at it, but it applies to everyday life as well.
The only logic that matters under our constitution is the supremacy of Crown in Parliament. Boris has a majority in Parliament of 80 so what Boris says goes, there will be no indyref2 while he remains UK PM with an overall Tory majority.
What the polling shows is only relevant to how much resistance he will face when he refuses to grant the SNP any indyref2 as he will, 43% of Scots not wanting an indyref2 for at least 10 years and 57% only wanting one within 5 years ie after the next general election shows Boris can easily get away with refusing one until 2024 as he will with little resistance bar the SNP hardcore.
HYUFD sigh:
Let's breakdown your post:
1st sentence - why you use the word logic here I don't know as there is no logical construct there whatsoever (not that it is needed). It looks like a statement of fact (I assume it is correct as I don't know have that knowledge)
2nd sentence - is a fact followed by an opinion.
2nd para - is an opinion
Do you know what logic is? Even if not trained in it most people grasp the basics as a matter of routine eg:
A implies B does not mean B implies A, etc.
I am not interested in replying to yet another of your extremely tedious and boring logic posts.
As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway
But HYUFD you make some brilliant posts, you are full of facts that many do not know and repost some excellent twitter post, particularly on opinion polls.
Yet you don't seem to get why some of your post drive us up the wall and it is not because of differences in political opinion. So for instance I don't actually disagree with you on your recent post; to be honest I don't have an opinion, so I am not arguing with you on your opinion.
I think you opinion is a perfectly valid one and one that I don't disagree with you on.
Has it never crossed you mind why people do get annoyed then with some of your posts? It is because you state opinion as fact, then when it is demonstrated that the fact is an opinion, you give another unrelated opinion to the one in question.
Even your last post does it:
'As I said without the approval of the UK PM logically there can be no legal indyref2 anyway'.
a) It has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I raised initially b) I agree with the point you are making in this sentence.
I did not say '57% of Scots as a matter of fact are happy with no indyref2 until after 2024.'
I said 'Even if 57% want a say in the next 5 years that means by 2026 ie after the next UK general election in 2024' which is a correct factual conclusion from the poll answers given.
It does not bother me what anyone thinks of my posts, if they dislike them so intently move on and respond to someone else's
You are the most talked about poster - a celeb in other words - and I'm betting that's fine by you. You like being a celeb. You like not being able to do normal posts like normal people without being noticed and bothered and pestered. You remind me of Rod Stewart in this regard.
Not sure about that. Given HYUFD's fondness for a previous PM, Rod would have to change the name of his best song from Maggie May to Maggie Will Definitely, TINA.
- Political slants on Rod songs. That's a goer.
Hot Takes. I Was Only Voting (my dear). The First Cuts Are The Deepest. The Right's Uptight. What Made Bill Walker Famous.
Comments
33,355 new infections.
Very nice, double bath and extra large shower etc etc
They had to ruin in by saying Maggie and Dennis used to stay in that room...........
How to ruin the mood
He's been the victim of a bad-faith effort to demonise criticism of government policy.
Luke Gittos"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/19/lord-sumption-the-monstering-of-a-lockdown-sceptic/
I`d be effing furious if they didn`t.
They'd see a decrease Saturday/Sunday/Monday then report Tuesday's catch up figures as a massive increase.
If that's his game, trying to lure me in with that, I can assure you he is failing. He is failing.
We have our own fine traditional native Drill scene. We don't want any of that foreign noise over here.
Not only has he a right to a platform, apparently he's a right not to be told he's a blithering, entitled fool.
This free speech is so confusing.
Mainly because it wasn't 3 and half hours long, IIRC.
Not all that useful for anything in particular though, for the reasons you point out - good/bad will not be something controlled by local authorities.
UPDATE: ITV is now reporting that Senedd officials are investigating the incident. Guido hears the investigation was sparked by the assembly’s catering staff who complained they were put in a difficult position as they tried to close the tearoom at 6 pm as per the rules
UPDATE II: Tory MS’s in attendance are understood to have been Tory leader Paul Davies, Chief Whip Darren Millar and Nick Ramsay.
UPDATE III: Alun Davies has been suspended. Full statement from Senedd Labour Group Spokesperson:
“A member has been suspended from the privileges of Senedd Labour Group membership while an investigation takes place into this alleged incident.”
https://order-order.com/2021/01/19/welsh-senedd-member-on-brink-of-suspension-after-hosting-drinks-party-in-conference-room/
A US Army official and a senior US intelligence official confirmed the decision to AP on the condition of anonymity due to Defense Department media regulations.
They did not say what fringe group the Guard members belonged to or what unit they served in.
https://news.sky.com/story/us-national-guard-troops-removed-from-inauguration-duty-due-to-far-right-links-reports-12192591
1st Dose - 204,076
2nd Dose - 4,565
1st Dose by Country
England - 167,150
NI - 7,140
Scotland - 19,591
Wales - 10,195
https://twitter.com/IrlEmbParis/status/1351556615665819648
I wonder if @HYUFD is actually a Rod Stewart fan. That would be quite something if he is, given what we now know.
https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1351537398564286466?s=20
Closest EU neighbour.
So you should be very interested. Otherwise you are a big part of the problem.
I mean just look at this correction the Telegraph had to do, he consistently gets basic facts wrong.
Lord Sumption: The simple truth is that lockdowns do not work
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated that ' in March Imperial College produced their now "discredited" figure of 510,000 deaths unless drastic action was taken'. In fact, Imperial College predicted 250,000 UK deaths without further intervention. We have amended the opening paragraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/12/19/simple-truth-lockdowns-do-not-work/
Lord Sumption is as much an expert on pandemics as I am an expert on the awesomeness of putting pineapple on pizza.
The update process for the website, by a PHE, is not hypersonic.
https://twitter.com/scotfoodjames/status/1351491482063171588?s=19
Also, kicking out Leonard seems popular.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1351569785419665410?s=19
I wouldn't even mind that so much, I own several of his books, if not for the 'I'm being picked on' whinging like a baby stuff that people indulge in.
If we were previously just being used as a conduit then it reduces pressure on our ports, on our roads, emissions of particles etc on our roads. Its a good adaptation to have our roads and ports used by those who actually want to use them. 👍🏻
Labour's Alun Davies has been suspended from the Labour AM group for drinking alcohol in the Senedd, despite a ban.
*sacking by SKS and Labour donors
They pay no tariff, and they can easily avoid buying diesel in the UK (diesel is cheaper in Ireland) so they are not even contributing to taxation and hence upkeep of the roads. They are not even paying their way.
They are noisy & polluting, they are contributing to heavy traffic on the road & congestion.
Against this, I guess there are some jobs at Holyhead and Dover that depend on the Irish truckers. They may go.
I might feel differently if Irish haulage to Europe was contributing to upkeep of our roads -- are they?
Before we get any more posts about this from you and Scott and co, please explain the advantage ***to Wales and England*** of having trucks use us a land-bridge to the EU.
Presumably, if we are all drove our juggernauts through Nabavi Gardens on our way to somewhere else, without offering any recompense, Richard Nabavi would quickly put a stop to it.
A 500-year-old painting has been discovered in a flat in Italy and returned to a museum - where staff were unaware it had even been stolen...
officials were not aware it had been stolen because "the room where the painting is kept has not been open for three months" due to the coronavirus pandemic.
It is not known when the artwork was taken as no one had reported it missing, but the museum said it was in its possession as recently as last January.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55719685
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/19/single-covid-vaccine-dose-in-israel-less-effective-than-we-hoped
Not great news.
As far as I am concerned Irish truckers going to Dover through North Wales do not seem to contribute anything but noise and pollution
Britain records its deadliest day since Covid pandemic began with 1,610 new victims
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9164179/Britain-records-deadliest-day-Covid-pandemic-began-1-610-new-victims.html
Hot Takes.
Tories Failing.
I Was Only Voting (my dear).
The First Cuts Are The Deepest.
The Right's Uptight.
What Made Bill Walker Famous.
Today
Yesterday
The government for very sound and understandable reasons has jettisoned for the moment the second dose but the fact remains that no trial has been done on single dosage and it is at best speculation that the efficacy is this that or the other.
Which is why a large number of viral immunologists are nervous or even disagree with the decision. But it is after all only a few weeks delay so people will manage. Oh there is the effect on that vulnerable category of people's mental health (on the bus off the bus) but I'm sure the bigger picture is more important.
From cases
From hospitalisation data