What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
Just so, and the referendum that produced that result was held on the say so of a party that won a GE with 37% of the vote. Democracy, eh!
The vote at second reading to hold the EU referendum was passed by 544 to 53. The 53 were the SNP. Who are now trying to tell us it doesn't have a democratic mandate. Democracy, eh!
Holding the referendum wasn't the problem. It was the way it was conducted, with dishonesty by Leave and incompetence by Remain.
Both sides were dishonest. Claims from the Remain side that a Leave vote would bring about recession and economic catastrophe by the end of 2016 were blatant scaremongering - straight out of the Tory 2015 election campaign handbook. That was decisive in persuading me to vote Leave .
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that false? Didn't the UK government add to the reserved powers list in order to prevent the Scottish Parliament from having power over things that would have become devolved post-Brexit?
yes
Which part? I just looked through the Scotland Act, and there has been no amendment affecting that schedule since 2019 which was for some very minor amendments relating to social security.
Internal Market Bill, wasn't it?
Which didn't amend the Scotland Act, so it didn't add to the list of reserved powers.
Well that's just entirely wrong.
Section 52 of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 explicitly amends Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Section 54 of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 explicitly amends Schedule 4 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Furthermore Section 10, disapplies section 30A of the Scotland Act 1998 when applying the new provisions, which talks of legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The same is true in section 18 which disapplies section 30A of the Scotland Act 1998 in regards to services.
Thanks, I guess the legislation website isn't as well maintained as I had thought it was. .
There's an understatement for the ages!
It's unforgivable really. People, normal people, should have a reasonable chance of being able to figure out what the law is if we are to live under the rule of law.
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that false? Didn't the UK government add to the reserved powers list in order to prevent the Scottish Parliament from having power over things that would have become devolved post-Brexit?
yes
Which part? I just looked through the Scotland Act, and there has been no amendment affecting that schedule since 2019 which was for some very minor amendments relating to social security.
Internal Market Bill, wasn't it?
Which didn't amend the Scotland Act, so it didn't add to the list of reserved powers.
Usual Tory play dumb act ( hopefully you are not as dumb as you make out) when they know all along the real answer. Westminster uses every opportunity, they have renaged on almost every supposed unwritten constitution item against Scotland , ignore the wishes of the Scottish people and their parliament.
Absolutely, Malcolm. It is what the Conservatives do in England too. They organise a sloppy referendum, which is so soggy that they get away with it before the Electoral Commission only by declaring it to be only advisory; and then, afterwards, they declare that it was binding after all. Then declare that they need dictatorial powers in order to"get Brexit done", and then ride roughshod over all our constitutional safeguards and conventions.
Their answer to all this, echoed faithfully by their sock puppets here on PB is that "we have an 80 seat majority in Parliament and we can do whatever we like". They pin their hopes on a spurious legality and pull every fast trick in the book (and a few more besides). And without trust, society breaks down.
Good luck with your campaign for an independent Scotland.
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
But just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan, since that's what we're discussing.
I'm saying she did proportionally worse than her peers. A starting position of one of the safest Labour seats certainly helps in an absolute sense.
Answer the question: is Lisa Nandy popular in Wigan or not?
Or what? lol. I was pointing out that proportionally she did much worse than her peers.
And I was pointing out that whether she did "proportionally worse than her peers" is neither here nor there when that wasn't what we were discussing.
My assertion was that Lisa Nandy is popular in Wigan. All your nonsense about swings is irrelevant to that. She got a higher percentage of the vote in Wigan than the Conservatives got in the country as a whole.
If she isn't popular, neither is the government.
I think it is relevant. Surely a personal vote would have helped buck the trend, not go in the opposite direction?
46.7% of Wigan voted for her.
Red wall voters definitely hate her.
Cons + Brexit Party got 45%. Red Wall voters definitely hate them.
So Con + Brexit Party got 45%. Lisa Nandy got 46.7.
Red Wall voters objectively and factually do not hate her. The numbers are right there in front of you.
You're carrying this straw man a long way.
Nobody said she was hated.
Nobody even said she wasn't popular.
The assertion was that she was out of touch. Clearly her voters disagree.
Guardian still repeating that 33% claim. Again irresponsible reporting.
Amazingly there looks to be a 60% reduction in *cases* 22 days after the first jab of Pfizer in Israel vs the rest of the population. That will feed through to an absolutely massive reduction in hospitalisation, we should get the data fairly soon from the Israelis and from our own efforts. Hopefully by this time next week.
We will look at the data from Israel very carefully. But considering no one knows for sure, there is some silly politics playing divergence going on with this one.
True, there hasn’t been much trialing efficacy of these vaccines 1 jab 12 weeks apart, but in fact that means no one knows for certain it won’t work. It’s how vaccines for SARS previously behaved being used to drive the decision making, and no one has much to back up an argument that the decision is wrong.
I can share some anecdotal, knowing some people given jabs. I have formed an opinion the Oxford vaccine leaves people feeling a bit more sick, like drunk and hung over, than the Pfizer one does. I put this down as being good, you know they have stabbed something in you and your body is aware of it?
On the contrary that's another tick for the Pfizer. No hangover with the best stuff. It's the plonk you need to be careful of.
I've been told that the Pfizer vaccine tends to leave you with an aching arm for a day or so, but that's it.
Guardian still repeating that 33% claim. Again irresponsible reporting.
Amazingly there looks to be a 60% reduction in *cases* 22 days after the first jab of Pfizer in Israel vs the rest of the population. That will feed through to an absolutely massive reduction in hospitalisation, we should get the data fairly soon from the Israelis and from our own efforts. Hopefully by this time next week.
We will look at the data from Israel very carefully. But considering no one knows for sure, there is some silly politics playing divergence going on with this one.
True, there hasn’t been much trialing efficacy of these vaccines 1 jab 12 weeks apart, but in fact that means no one knows for certain it won’t work. It’s how vaccines for SARS previously behaved being used to drive the decision making, and no one has much to back up an argument that the decision is wrong.
I can share some anecdotal, knowing some people given jabs. I have formed an opinion the Oxford vaccine leaves people feeling a bit more sick, like drunk and hung over, than the Pfizer one does. I put this down as being good, you know they have stabbed something in you and your body is aware of it?
On the contrary that's another tick for the Pfizer. No hangover with the best stuff. It's the plonk you need to be careful of.
I've been told that the Pfizer vaccine tends to leave you with an aching arm for a day or so, but that's it.
I'd heard that was on the second dose? (My neighbours have had both and had no problems at all on either.)
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
But just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan, since that's what we're discussing.
I'm saying she did proportionally worse than her peers. A starting position of one of the safest Labour seats certainly helps in an absolute sense.
Answer the question: is Lisa Nandy popular in Wigan or not?
Or what? lol. I was pointing out that proportionally she did much worse than her peers.
And I was pointing out that whether she did "proportionally worse than her peers" is neither here nor there when that wasn't what we were discussing.
My assertion was that Lisa Nandy is popular in Wigan. All your nonsense about swings is irrelevant to that. She got a higher percentage of the vote in Wigan than the Conservatives got in the country as a whole.
If she isn't popular, neither is the government.
I think it is relevant. Surely a personal vote would have helped buck the trend, not go in the opposite direction?
46.7% of Wigan voted for her.
Red wall voters definitely hate her.
Cons + Brexit Party got 45%. Red Wall voters definitely hate them.
So Con + Brexit Party got 45%. Lisa Nandy got 46.7.
Red Wall voters objectively and factually do not hate her. The numbers are right there in front of you.
You're carrying this straw man a long way.
Nobody said she was hated.
Nobody even said she wasn't popular.
Nandy is NOT hated in Wigan. That's a ludicrous assertion by whoever is asserting it.
No-one said she was hated. It was pointed out that she had a bigger than average swing against her in the GE. Gallowgate thinks she must therefore know more about red wall voters tgan HYUFD. Go figure!
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Lol - Wigan is typical of the UK of course so you are spot on. Loving the sharpness of your political antennae. Explains so much.
Yes. The guy who lives in Spain is always on the pulse of UK political thought and opinion. Get a grip.
I voted for the party with the 80 seat majority so ..yes.. i guess I must be. You, on the other hand.......seem a little too close to the red wall to notice how blue it's become - even in the likes of Wigan.
You might not be able to tell from Spain but Wigan voted Labour and so did many northern urban constituencies.
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
I'm pretty sure you also said that Boris's use of the royal prerogative wasn't unlawful. Funny how that turned out.
It's almost like you're not a constitutional law expert?
I said that the first hearing of the case in the Queens' Bench (a very strong bench at that) had upheld Boris' position.
The Supreme Court took, er, a different path...
I ally myself with the Queen's Bench decision.
That's not how the law works. The Supreme Court's decision is what the law is. What the High Court said is neither here nor there. It was overruled.
Kind of puts your other opinions into perspective really.
My opinion is that in the particular instance of that case, the Supreme Court chose to be a law-making body. And a party pledging to trim the ability of the Supreme Court to make law in place of Parliament subsequently won an 80 seat majority.
Your opinion is irrelevant. The law is the law.
The law is what it is at any point in time. At the time of the Queen's Bench decision, that Boris was entitled to use his powers was the correct interpretation of the law. Agreed?
Or is the flaw utterly unsettled until all possible avenues of appeal have been exhausted?
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong.
The Quebec precedent is often brought up - of support for independence ebbing away/collapsing following a second referendum defeat.
Does anyone have an explanation for why this happened? I can think of a few possibilities, but I have no knowledge.
Was there infighting in the independence movement?
Was the next generation of independence politicians relatively less impressive?
Was it simply a loss of confidence among supporters following two defeats?
Were there constitutional changes that satisfied some independence voters?
Economic changes?
The precedent is brought up so often that someone must have at least a good idea why it happened.
Quebec is of course visibly distinct from the rest of Canada -- much more so than Wales, Scotland or even the Republic of Ireland are from England. It has a different language, culture, educational system and legal system from the rest of Canada.
With all these advantages, it should have left. But it has one big, big, big problem that Scotland or even Wales does not have.
The boundaries of Quebec are very unclear.
Quebec entered the Canadian Federation as settlements confined to the St Lawrence river-- and received former Hudson Bay Company territories (Prince Rupert's Land) to administer as part of the Federation. The territories (now called Nouveau Quebec) are of course empty of people -- mainly indigenous Inuit live there -- but they are resource-rich.
Whether Quebec could enter the Canadian Federation as a small province and leave it as a much larger province was always very unclear.
In the 1995 referendum, there was a majority among French speakers to leave, & the English speakers voted to stay. No surprise. But the allophones voted to stay, including the Inuit of Nouveau Quebec.
The reaction of Parizeau (the Parti Quebecois leader) to the referendum loss was to blame the allophones. These remarks were widely regarded as xenophobic and antisemitic.
Quebec may well still leave Canada (especially if the Scots are successful in leaving the UK).
But, they won't leave with the present boundaries of the province of Quebec intact. That is the problem Quebec has.
Nowe that is an interesting and useful contribution (even if the Scots and Welsh also score on many of your points). Most illuminating, and much better than facile analogies of polling history.
Imagine if the rest of the UK adopted bi-lingual signage to keep the Welsh happy.
Wouldn't work. YOu'd need Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Ulster Scots as well.
In the days of satnav, why do we need signs? Just set your satnav to the language of choice and voila! (Other languages are available....)
Bi-lingual road signs in Wales annoy me. What kind of a plonker can't figure out that Caerdydd is really the same place as Cardiff? And if the Welsh want to call Swansea Abertawe that's their busines. You don't expect to see signs to Florence when driving to Firenze.
The locals get to decide what the place should be called. Everyone else, live with it.
@Mary_Batty - here is the change in the Labour vote in 2019 compared with 2017 in constituencies in which they won between 57% and 67% of the vote in 2017 (they won 62.2% of the vote in Wigan in 2017).
I'd suggest she did about par in 2019 given where her seat is. Like most MPs she is no more or less popular than her party.
Wentworth and Dearne: -24.7 pp Barnsley Central: -23.8 pp Doncaster North: -22.1 pp Barnsley East: -21.9 pp Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford: -21.6 pp Jarrow: -20.0 pp Kingston upon Hull East: -19.1 pp Houghton and Sunderland South: -18.7 pp Washington and Sunderland West: -18.2 pp Easington: -18.2 pp Doncaster Central: -17.9 pp Leicester East: -16.2 pp South Shields: -15.9 pp Torfaen: -15.8 pp North Durham: -15.7 pp West Bromwich East: -15.7 pp Wigan: -15.5 pp Middlesbrough: -15.2 pp Makerfield: -15.1 pp Wansbeck: -15.1 pp North Tyneside: -14.8 pp Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney: -14.3 pp Islwyn: -14.1 pp Kingston upon Hull North: -14.0 pp Denton and Reddish: -13.5 pp Ogmore: -12.7 pp Sheffield South East: -12.4 pp Ashton-Under-Lyne: -12.3 pp Stalybridge and Hyde: -12.3 pp Wolverhampton South East: -11.8 pp Swansea East: -11.6 pp Gateshead: -11.5 pp Leeds East: -11.5 pp St Helens North: -11.5 pp Huddersfield: -11.4 pp Worsley and Eccles South: -11.3 pp Stockport: -11.3 pp Leicester West: -11.1 pp Nottingham North: -11.1 pp Brent North: -11.0 pp Coventry North East: -10.8 pp Hayes and Harlington: -10.7 pp Luton South: -10.6 pp Hampstead and Kilburn: -10.1 pp York Central: -10.0 pp Oldham West and Royton: -9.9 pp Rhondda: -9.7 pp Sheffield, Heeley: -9.7 pp Cynon Valley: -9.6 pp Bristol South: -9.5 pp Erith and Thamesmead: -9.5 pp Ealing North: -9.5 pp Feltham and Heston: -9.2 pp Southampton, Test: -9.2 pp Wythenshawe and Sale East: -8.9 pp Leeds West: -8.9 pp Blaenau Gwent: -8.8 pp Exeter: -8.8 pp Luton North: -8.7 pp Salford and Eccles: -8.7 pp Harrow West: -8.4 pp Ealing Central and Acton: -8.4 pp Walsall South: -8.2 pp Oxford East: -8.2 pp Swansea West: -8.1 pp Hornsey and Wood Green: -7.9 pp Bolton South East: -7.7 pp Birmingham, Erdington: -7.7 pp Greenwich and Woolwich: -7.6 pp Bristol East: -7.6 pp Newcastle Upon Tyne Central: -7.3 pp Derby South: -7.3 pp Ilford North: -7.2 pp Norwich South: -7.2 pp Brentford and Isleworth: -7.2 pp Nottingham South: -7.1 pp Tooting: -6.9 pp Birmingham, Selly Oak: -6.9 pp Brighton, Kemptown: -6.8 pp West Lancashire: -6.8 pp Islington South and Finsbury: -6.6 pp Stretford and Urmston: -6.5 pp Rochdale: -6.4 pp Enfield North: -6.2 pp Wirral South: -6.1 pp Hammersmith: -6.0 pp Hove: -5.8 pp Ellesmere Port and Neston: -5.8 pp Westminster North: -5.7 pp Leeds North East: -5.6 pp Sefton Central: -5.5 pp Lewisham West and Penge: -5.4 pp Cardiff South and Penarth: -5.4 pp Slough: -5.3 pp Bristol West: -3.7 pp Bradford East: -2.4 pp Birmingham, Yardley: -2.3 pp Vauxhall: -1.2 pp Cardiff Central: -1.2 pp Bradford West: 11.5 pp
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
I'm pretty sure you also said that Boris's use of the royal prerogative wasn't unlawful. Funny how that turned out.
It's almost like you're not a constitutional law expert?
I said that the first hearing of the case in the Queens' Bench (a very strong bench at that) had upheld Boris' position.
The Supreme Court took, er, a different path...
I ally myself with the Queen's Bench decision.
That's not how the law works. The Supreme Court's decision is what the law is. What the High Court said is neither here nor there. It was overruled.
Kind of puts your other opinions into perspective really.
My opinion is that in the particular instance of that case, the Supreme Court chose to be a law-making body. And a party pledging to trim the ability of the Supreme Court to make law in place of Parliament subsequently won an 80 seat majority.
Your opinion is irrelevant. The law is the law.
The law is what it is at any point in time. At the time of the Queen's Bench decision, that Boris was entitled to use his powers was the correct interpretation of the law. Agreed?
Or is the flaw utterly unsettled until all possible avenues of appeal have been exhausted?
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong.
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
I'm pretty sure you also said that Boris's use of the royal prerogative wasn't unlawful. Funny how that turned out.
It's almost like you're not a constitutional law expert?
I said that the first hearing of the case in the Queens' Bench (a very strong bench at that) had upheld Boris' position.
The Supreme Court took, er, a different path...
I ally myself with the Queen's Bench decision.
That's not how the law works. The Supreme Court's decision is what the law is. What the High Court said is neither here nor there. It was overruled.
Kind of puts your other opinions into perspective really.
My opinion is that in the particular instance of that case, the Supreme Court chose to be a law-making body. And a party pledging to trim the ability of the Supreme Court to make law in place of Parliament subsequently won an 80 seat majority.
Your opinion is irrelevant. The law is the law.
The law is what it is at any point in time. At the time of the Queen's Bench decision, that Boris was entitled to use his powers was the correct interpretation of the law. Agreed?
Or is the flaw utterly unsettled until all possible avenues of appeal have been exhausted?
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong.
What more is there to say?
Well, you could answer the question....
What question? The High Court gave their opinion on whether it was lawful. The Supreme Court held that they wrong.
You may "support the High Court" but that's irrelevant. The Supreme Court held they were wrong so they were wrong.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
Not really a big intellectual hurdle to becoming PM if a British PM of the calibre we have currently can also churn out boorish confidence in fluent French.
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
But just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan, since that's what we're discussing.
I'm saying she did proportionally worse than her peers. A starting position of one of the safest Labour seats certainly helps in an absolute sense.
Answer the question: is Lisa Nandy popular in Wigan or not?
Or what? lol. I was pointing out that proportionally she did much worse than her peers.
And I was pointing out that whether she did "proportionally worse than her peers" is neither here nor there when that wasn't what we were discussing.
My assertion was that Lisa Nandy is popular in Wigan. All your nonsense about swings is irrelevant to that. She got a higher percentage of the vote in Wigan than the Conservatives got in the country as a whole.
If she isn't popular, neither is the government.
I think it is relevant. Surely a personal vote would have helped buck the trend, not go in the opposite direction?
46.7% of Wigan voted for her.
Red wall voters definitely hate her.
Cons + Brexit Party got 45%. Red Wall voters definitely hate them.
So Con + Brexit Party got 45%. Lisa Nandy got 46.7.
Red Wall voters objectively and factually do not hate her. The numbers are right there in front of you.
You're carrying this straw man a long way.
Nobody said she was hated.
Nobody even said she wasn't popular.
The assertion was that she was out of touch. Clearly her voters disagree.
The original assertion was "hapless", which AFAIK means unlucky so a strange descriptor IMO. The only other assertion was that she'd had a bigger swing against her than average.
You've argued against 3 different things (hated, unpopular, and now out of touch), none of which have been asserted by anyone today.
@Mary_Batty - here is the change in the Labour vote in 2019 compared with 2017 in constituencies in which they won between 57% and 67% of the vote in 2017 (they won 62.2% of the vote in Wigan in 2017).
I'd suggest she did about par in 2019 given where her seat is. Like most MPs she is no more or less popular than her party.
Wentworth and Dearne: -24.7 pp Barnsley Central: -23.8 pp Doncaster North: -22.1 pp Barnsley East: -21.9 pp Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford: -21.6 pp Jarrow: -20.0 pp Kingston upon Hull East: -19.1 pp Houghton and Sunderland South: -18.7 pp Washington and Sunderland West: -18.2 pp Easington: -18.2 pp Doncaster Central: -17.9 pp Leicester East: -16.2 pp South Shields: -15.9 pp Torfaen: -15.8 pp North Durham: -15.7 pp West Bromwich East: -15.7 pp Wigan: -15.5 pp Middlesbrough: -15.2 pp Makerfield: -15.1 pp Wansbeck: -15.1 pp North Tyneside: -14.8 pp Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney: -14.3 pp Islwyn: -14.1 pp Kingston upon Hull North: -14.0 pp Denton and Reddish: -13.5 pp Ogmore: -12.7 pp Sheffield South East: -12.4 pp Ashton-Under-Lyne: -12.3 pp Stalybridge and Hyde: -12.3 pp Wolverhampton South East: -11.8 pp Swansea East: -11.6 pp Gateshead: -11.5 pp Leeds East: -11.5 pp St Helens North: -11.5 pp Huddersfield: -11.4 pp Worsley and Eccles South: -11.3 pp Stockport: -11.3 pp Leicester West: -11.1 pp Nottingham North: -11.1 pp Brent North: -11.0 pp Coventry North East: -10.8 pp Hayes and Harlington: -10.7 pp Luton South: -10.6 pp Hampstead and Kilburn: -10.1 pp York Central: -10.0 pp Oldham West and Royton: -9.9 pp Rhondda: -9.7 pp Sheffield, Heeley: -9.7 pp Cynon Valley: -9.6 pp Bristol South: -9.5 pp Erith and Thamesmead: -9.5 pp Ealing North: -9.5 pp Feltham and Heston: -9.2 pp Southampton, Test: -9.2 pp Wythenshawe and Sale East: -8.9 pp Leeds West: -8.9 pp Blaenau Gwent: -8.8 pp Exeter: -8.8 pp Luton North: -8.7 pp Salford and Eccles: -8.7 pp Harrow West: -8.4 pp Ealing Central and Acton: -8.4 pp Walsall South: -8.2 pp Oxford East: -8.2 pp Swansea West: -8.1 pp Hornsey and Wood Green: -7.9 pp Bolton South East: -7.7 pp Birmingham, Erdington: -7.7 pp Greenwich and Woolwich: -7.6 pp Bristol East: -7.6 pp Newcastle Upon Tyne Central: -7.3 pp Derby South: -7.3 pp Ilford North: -7.2 pp Norwich South: -7.2 pp Brentford and Isleworth: -7.2 pp Nottingham South: -7.1 pp Tooting: -6.9 pp Birmingham, Selly Oak: -6.9 pp Brighton, Kemptown: -6.8 pp West Lancashire: -6.8 pp Islington South and Finsbury: -6.6 pp Stretford and Urmston: -6.5 pp Rochdale: -6.4 pp Enfield North: -6.2 pp Wirral South: -6.1 pp Hammersmith: -6.0 pp Hove: -5.8 pp Ellesmere Port and Neston: -5.8 pp Westminster North: -5.7 pp Leeds North East: -5.6 pp Sefton Central: -5.5 pp Lewisham West and Penge: -5.4 pp Cardiff South and Penarth: -5.4 pp Slough: -5.3 pp Bristol West: -3.7 pp Bradford East: -2.4 pp Birmingham, Yardley: -2.3 pp Vauxhall: -1.2 pp Cardiff Central: -1.2 pp Bradford West: 11.5 pp
Well being shallow I am glad they kept her in, we don't have that many attractive MPs.
The Quebec precedent is often brought up - of support for independence ebbing away/collapsing following a second referendum defeat.
Does anyone have an explanation for why this happened? I can think of a few possibilities, but I have no knowledge.
Was there infighting in the independence movement?
Was the next generation of independence politicians relatively less impressive?
Was it simply a loss of confidence among supporters following two defeats?
Were there constitutional changes that satisfied some independence voters?
Economic changes?
The precedent is brought up so often that someone must have at least a good idea why it happened.
Quebec is of course visibly distinct from the rest of Canada -- much more so than Wales, Scotland or even the Republic of Ireland are from England. It has a different language, culture, educational system and legal system from the rest of Canada.
With all these advantages, it should have left. But it has one big, big, big problem that Scotland or even Wales does not have.
The boundaries of Quebec are very unclear.
Quebec entered the Canadian Federation as settlements confined to the St Lawrence river-- and received former Hudson Bay Company territories (Prince Rupert's Land) to administer as part of the Federation. The territories (now called Nouveau Quebec) are of course empty of people -- mainly indigenous Inuit live there -- but they are resource-rich.
Whether Quebec could enter the Canadian Federation as a small province and leave it as a much larger province was always very unclear.
In the 1995 referendum, there was a majority among French speakers to leave, & the English speakers voted to stay. No surprise. But the allophones voted to stay, including the Inuit of Nouveau Quebec.
The reaction of Parizeau (the Parti Quebecois leader) to the referendum loss was to blame the allophones. These remarks were widely regarded as xenophobic and antisemitic.
Quebec may well still leave Canada (especially if the Scots are successful in leaving the UK).
But, they won't leave with the present boundaries of the province of Quebec intact. That is the problem Quebec has.
Nowe that is an interesting and useful contribution (even if the Scots and Welsh also score on many of your points). Most illuminating, and much better than facile analogies of polling history.
Imagine if the rest of the UK adopted bi-lingual signage to keep the Welsh happy.
Wouldn't work. YOu'd need Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Ulster Scots as well.
In the days of satnav, why do we need signs? Just set your satnav to the language of choice and voila! (Other languages are available....)
Bi-lingual road signs in Wales annoy me. What kind of a plonker can't figure out that Caerdydd is really the same place as Cardiff? And if the Welsh want to call Swansea Abertawe that's their busines. You don't expect to see signs to Florence when driving to Firenze.
The locals get to decide what the place should be called. Everyone else, live with it.
One of my modest money-saving schemes is to have a huge sign saying "Araf" at every border crossing. Then it wouldn't be necessary to paint it on the road every 200 yards.
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
Oh Dear, you are getting worse than HYFUD and Phillip. How can the mirror change it from 45 degrees to vertical, can you not just admit it is obviously photoshopped to try and make Bozo look human.
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
But just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan, since that's what we're discussing.
I'm saying she did proportionally worse than her peers. A starting position of one of the safest Labour seats certainly helps in an absolute sense.
Answer the question: is Lisa Nandy popular in Wigan or not?
Or what? lol. I was pointing out that proportionally she did much worse than her peers.
And I was pointing out that whether she did "proportionally worse than her peers" is neither here nor there when that wasn't what we were discussing.
My assertion was that Lisa Nandy is popular in Wigan. All your nonsense about swings is irrelevant to that. She got a higher percentage of the vote in Wigan than the Conservatives got in the country as a whole.
If she isn't popular, neither is the government.
I think it is relevant. Surely a personal vote would have helped buck the trend, not go in the opposite direction?
46.7% of Wigan voted for her.
Red wall voters definitely hate her.
Cons + Brexit Party got 45%. Red Wall voters definitely hate them.
So Con + Brexit Party got 45%. Lisa Nandy got 46.7.
Red Wall voters objectively and factually do not hate her. The numbers are right there in front of you.
You're carrying this straw man a long way.
Nobody said she was hated.
Nobody even said she wasn't popular.
The assertion was that she was out of touch. Clearly her voters disagree.
The original assertion was "hapless", which AFAIK means unlucky so a strange descriptor IMO. The only other assertion was that she'd had a bigger swing against her than average.
You've argued against 3 different things (hated, unpopular, and now out of touch), none of which have been asserted by anyone today.
Rubbish. The article was clearly posted as a "LOL look at woke out of touch Nandy".
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
Oh Dear, you are getting worse than HYFUD and Phillip. How can the mirror change it from 45 degrees to vertical, can you not just admit it is obviously photoshopped to try and make Bozo look human.
Good lord. LOL. If you were here in person I could demonstrate this to you very easily.
So can this other biped with a carefully mussed-up hairstyle. Which, admittedly, throws no real light on the intellectual powers of Canadian vs UK premiers. Really, it's the content that matters.
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
It starts with losing a sense of perspective, and before long it leads to believing in wild conspiracy theories.
It's the same as what happened to QAnon suckers. They slowly get dragged into a spiral of believing all of this bullshit because they want something to be true so desperately that they completely lose any sense of perspective. Peston desperately wants Boris to slip up or for the media to team to make some small gaffe, so he believes absolutely everything without question. Same as C4 with their whole "people of talent" vs "people of colour" bullshit last year.
The Quebec precedent is often brought up - of support for independence ebbing away/collapsing following a second referendum defeat.
Does anyone have an explanation for why this happened? I can think of a few possibilities, but I have no knowledge.
Was there infighting in the independence movement?
Was the next generation of independence politicians relatively less impressive?
Was it simply a loss of confidence among supporters following two defeats?
Were there constitutional changes that satisfied some independence voters?
Economic changes?
The precedent is brought up so often that someone must have at least a good idea why it happened.
Quebec is of course visibly distinct from the rest of Canada -- much more so than Wales, Scotland or even the Republic of Ireland are from England. It has a different language, culture, educational system and legal system from the rest of Canada.
With all these advantages, it should have left. But it has one big, big, big problem that Scotland or even Wales does not have.
The boundaries of Quebec are very unclear.
Quebec entered the Canadian Federation as settlements confined to the St Lawrence river-- and received former Hudson Bay Company territories (Prince Rupert's Land) to administer as part of the Federation. The territories (now called Nouveau Quebec) are of course empty of people -- mainly indigenous Inuit live there -- but they are resource-rich.
Whether Quebec could enter the Canadian Federation as a small province and leave it as a much larger province was always very unclear.
In the 1995 referendum, there was a majority among French speakers to leave, & the English speakers voted to stay. No surprise. But the allophones voted to stay, including the Inuit of Nouveau Quebec.
The reaction of Parizeau (the Parti Quebecois leader) to the referendum loss was to blame the allophones. These remarks were widely regarded as xenophobic and antisemitic.
Quebec may well still leave Canada (especially if the Scots are successful in leaving the UK).
But, they won't leave with the present boundaries of the province of Quebec intact. That is the problem Quebec has.
Nowe that is an interesting and useful contribution (even if the Scots and Welsh also score on many of your points). Most illuminating, and much better than facile analogies of polling history.
Imagine if the rest of the UK adopted bi-lingual signage to keep the Welsh happy.
Of course, official bilingualism in Canada (which is necessary for all Governments documents, etc) has helped bind Quebec more tightly to the rest of Canada.
It has created a large body of middle-class professionals in Quebec who spend their life translating documents from French to English (and vice versa) -- who would have zero job prospects in an independent Quebec.
Hull/Chapleau (other side of the Ontario boundary from Ottawa) was perhaps the only majority French-speaking riding that voted "Non". It is packed with people employed by federal government agencies to translate documents.
The others that voted "Non" were the heavily Anglicised Eastern Townships, West & Central Montreal and the Inuits of Nouveau Quebec.
Official bilingualism always works to erase the desire for separation.
(The same of course has happened in Wales -- bilingualism has created middle class people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo).
Somehow I can’t see Boris fronting a campaign to big up Gaelic. Though it might be amusing to watch HYUFD throw himself enthusiastically into it.
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
Oh Dear, you are getting worse than HYFUD and Phillip. How can the mirror change it from 45 degrees to vertical, can you not just admit it is obviously photoshopped to try and make Bozo look human.
It only looks vertical in the mirror because it’s in the same plane.
The Quebec precedent is often brought up - of support for independence ebbing away/collapsing following a second referendum defeat.
Does anyone have an explanation for why this happened? I can think of a few possibilities, but I have no knowledge.
Was there infighting in the independence movement?
Was the next generation of independence politicians relatively less impressive?
Was it simply a loss of confidence among supporters following two defeats?
Were there constitutional changes that satisfied some independence voters?
Economic changes?
The precedent is brought up so often that someone must have at least a good idea why it happened.
Quebec is of course visibly distinct from the rest of Canada -- much more so than Wales, Scotland or even the Republic of Ireland are from England. It has a different language, culture, educational system and legal system from the rest of Canada.
With all these advantages, it should have left. But it has one big, big, big problem that Scotland or even Wales does not have.
The boundaries of Quebec are very unclear.
Quebec entered the Canadian Federation as settlements confined to the St Lawrence river-- and received former Hudson Bay Company territories (Prince Rupert's Land) to administer as part of the Federation. The territories (now called Nouveau Quebec) are of course empty of people -- mainly indigenous Inuit live there -- but they are resource-rich.
Whether Quebec could enter the Canadian Federation as a small province and leave it as a much larger province was always very unclear.
In the 1995 referendum, there was a majority among French speakers to leave, & the English speakers voted to stay. No surprise. But the allophones voted to stay, including the Inuit of Nouveau Quebec.
The reaction of Parizeau (the Parti Quebecois leader) to the referendum loss was to blame the allophones. These remarks were widely regarded as xenophobic and antisemitic.
Quebec may well still leave Canada (especially if the Scots are successful in leaving the UK).
But, they won't leave with the present boundaries of the province of Quebec intact. That is the problem Quebec has.
Nowe that is an interesting and useful contribution (even if the Scots and Welsh also score on many of your points). Most illuminating, and much better than facile analogies of polling history.
Imagine if the rest of the UK adopted bi-lingual signage to keep the Welsh happy.
Of course, official bilingualism in Canada (which is necessary for all Governments documents, etc) has helped bind Quebec more tightly to the rest of Canada.
It has created a large body of middle-class professionals in Quebec who spend their life translating documents from French to English (and vice versa) -- who would have zero job prospects in an independent Quebec.
Hull/Chapleau (other side of the Ontario boundary from Ottawa) was perhaps the only majority French-speaking riding that voted "Non". It is packed with people employed by federal government agencies to translate documents.
The others that voted "Non" were the heavily Anglicised Eastern Townships, West & Central Montreal and the Inuits of Nouveau Quebec.
Official bilingualism always works to erase the desire for separation.
(The same of course has happened in Wales -- bilingualism has created middle class people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo).
Isn't that logic a bit stretched? The Irish are de facto officially bilingual - and so would an independent Wales. So no change there surely.
In Canada, I think it has helped the country stay together by creating bilingual speakers who have an interest in the status quo.
Every federal document (even in Alberta or BC or Newfoundland) must be in English/French.
I think at the height of the pandemic, the Canadian Government distributed PPC materials (probably made in China) with instructions in English only. They were taken to court by Francophones.
Absolutely everything the Federal Government does must be in English and French in EVERY Canadian province, even the ones where only a tiny percentage are French speakers.
It is a goldmine for the Canadiens who are truly bilingual.
Ah, that's interesting. Of course, they can't vote if they are not living in Quebec, but there is still some effect you think?
Yes, because the federal capital Ottawa is virtually on the boundary between Ontario and Quebec.
You can easily work for the federal government and live in Quebec.
In fact, that is the significance of the "Non" result from the Hull/Chapleau riding -- it is just across the river from Ottawa, but it is in Quebec. It was more strongly against independence even than the English-speaking Western Montreal ridings.
@Mary_Batty - here is the change in the Labour vote in 2019 compared with 2017 in constituencies in which they won between 57% and 67% of the vote in 2017 (they won 62.2% of the vote in Wigan in 2017).
I'd suggest she did about par in 2019 given where her seat is. Like most MPs she is no more or less popular than her party.
Wentworth and Dearne: -24.7 pp Barnsley Central: -23.8 pp Doncaster North: -22.1 pp Barnsley East: -21.9 pp Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford: -21.6 pp Jarrow: -20.0 pp Kingston upon Hull East: -19.1 pp Houghton and Sunderland South: -18.7 pp Washington and Sunderland West: -18.2 pp Easington: -18.2 pp Doncaster Central: -17.9 pp Leicester East: -16.2 pp South Shields: -15.9 pp Torfaen: -15.8 pp North Durham: -15.7 pp West Bromwich East: -15.7 pp Wigan: -15.5 pp Middlesbrough: -15.2 pp Makerfield: -15.1 pp Wansbeck: -15.1 pp North Tyneside: -14.8 pp Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney: -14.3 pp Islwyn: -14.1 pp Kingston upon Hull North: -14.0 pp Denton and Reddish: -13.5 pp Ogmore: -12.7 pp Sheffield South East: -12.4 pp Ashton-Under-Lyne: -12.3 pp Stalybridge and Hyde: -12.3 pp Wolverhampton South East: -11.8 pp Swansea East: -11.6 pp Gateshead: -11.5 pp Leeds East: -11.5 pp St Helens North: -11.5 pp Huddersfield: -11.4 pp Worsley and Eccles South: -11.3 pp Stockport: -11.3 pp Leicester West: -11.1 pp Nottingham North: -11.1 pp Brent North: -11.0 pp Coventry North East: -10.8 pp Hayes and Harlington: -10.7 pp Luton South: -10.6 pp Hampstead and Kilburn: -10.1 pp York Central: -10.0 pp Oldham West and Royton: -9.9 pp Rhondda: -9.7 pp Sheffield, Heeley: -9.7 pp Cynon Valley: -9.6 pp Bristol South: -9.5 pp Erith and Thamesmead: -9.5 pp Ealing North: -9.5 pp Feltham and Heston: -9.2 pp Southampton, Test: -9.2 pp Wythenshawe and Sale East: -8.9 pp Leeds West: -8.9 pp Blaenau Gwent: -8.8 pp Exeter: -8.8 pp Luton North: -8.7 pp Salford and Eccles: -8.7 pp Harrow West: -8.4 pp Ealing Central and Acton: -8.4 pp Walsall South: -8.2 pp Oxford East: -8.2 pp Swansea West: -8.1 pp Hornsey and Wood Green: -7.9 pp Bolton South East: -7.7 pp Birmingham, Erdington: -7.7 pp Greenwich and Woolwich: -7.6 pp Bristol East: -7.6 pp Newcastle Upon Tyne Central: -7.3 pp Derby South: -7.3 pp Ilford North: -7.2 pp Norwich South: -7.2 pp Brentford and Isleworth: -7.2 pp Nottingham South: -7.1 pp Tooting: -6.9 pp Birmingham, Selly Oak: -6.9 pp Brighton, Kemptown: -6.8 pp West Lancashire: -6.8 pp Islington South and Finsbury: -6.6 pp Stretford and Urmston: -6.5 pp Rochdale: -6.4 pp Enfield North: -6.2 pp Wirral South: -6.1 pp Hammersmith: -6.0 pp Hove: -5.8 pp Ellesmere Port and Neston: -5.8 pp Westminster North: -5.7 pp Leeds North East: -5.6 pp Sefton Central: -5.5 pp Lewisham West and Penge: -5.4 pp Cardiff South and Penarth: -5.4 pp Slough: -5.3 pp Bristol West: -3.7 pp Bradford East: -2.4 pp Birmingham, Yardley: -2.3 pp Vauxhall: -1.2 pp Cardiff Central: -1.2 pp Bradford West: 11.5 pp
The Quebec precedent is often brought up - of support for independence ebbing away/collapsing following a second referendum defeat.
Does anyone have an explanation for why this happened? I can think of a few possibilities, but I have no knowledge.
Was there infighting in the independence movement?
Was the next generation of independence politicians relatively less impressive?
Was it simply a loss of confidence among supporters following two defeats?
Were there constitutional changes that satisfied some independence voters?
Economic changes?
The precedent is brought up so often that someone must have at least a good idea why it happened.
Quebec is of course visibly distinct from the rest of Canada -- much more so than Wales, Scotland or even the Republic of Ireland are from England. It has a different language, culture, educational system and legal system from the rest of Canada.
With all these advantages, it should have left. But it has one big, big, big problem that Scotland or even Wales does not have.
The boundaries of Quebec are very unclear.
Quebec entered the Canadian Federation as settlements confined to the St Lawrence river-- and received former Hudson Bay Company territories (Prince Rupert's Land) to administer as part of the Federation. The territories (now called Nouveau Quebec) are of course empty of people -- mainly indigenous Inuit live there -- but they are resource-rich.
Whether Quebec could enter the Canadian Federation as a small province and leave it as a much larger province was always very unclear.
In the 1995 referendum, there was a majority among French speakers to leave, & the English speakers voted to stay. No surprise. But the allophones voted to stay, including the Inuit of Nouveau Quebec.
The reaction of Parizeau (the Parti Quebecois leader) to the referendum loss was to blame the allophones. These remarks were widely regarded as xenophobic and antisemitic.
Quebec may well still leave Canada (especially if the Scots are successful in leaving the UK).
But, they won't leave with the present boundaries of the province of Quebec intact. That is the problem Quebec has.
Nowe that is an interesting and useful contribution (even if the Scots and Welsh also score on many of your points). Most illuminating, and much better than facile analogies of polling history.
Imagine if the rest of the UK adopted bi-lingual signage to keep the Welsh happy.
Of course, official bilingualism in Canada (which is necessary for all Governments documents, etc) has helped bind Quebec more tightly to the rest of Canada.
It has created a large body of middle-class professionals in Quebec who spend their life translating documents from French to English (and vice versa) -- who would have zero job prospects in an independent Quebec.
Hull/Chapleau (other side of the Ontario boundary from Ottawa) was perhaps the only majority French-speaking riding that voted "Non". It is packed with people employed by federal government agencies to translate documents.
The others that voted "Non" were the heavily Anglicised Eastern Townships, West & Central Montreal and the Inuits of Nouveau Quebec.
Official bilingualism always works to erase the desire for separation.
(The same of course has happened in Wales -- bilingualism has created middle class people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo).
Somehow I can’t see Boris fronting a campaign to big up Gaelic. Though it might be amusing to watch HYUFD throw himself enthusiastically into it.
What’s Gaelic for riot baton?
Too civilised to have such a word. Big stick an bata mor is probably it,. though TUD is here (and I can't get this thing to put the accenty in).
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that false? Didn't the UK government add to the reserved powers list in order to prevent the Scottish Parliament from having power over things that would have become devolved post-Brexit?
yes
Which part? I just looked through the Scotland Act, and there has been no amendment affecting that schedule since 2019 which was for some very minor amendments relating to social security.
Internal Market Bill, wasn't it?
Which didn't amend the Scotland Act, so it didn't add to the list of reserved powers.
Well that's just entirely wrong.
Section 52 of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 explicitly amends Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Section 54 of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 explicitly amends Schedule 4 of the Scotland Act 1998.
Furthermore Section 10, disapplies section 30A of the Scotland Act 1998 when applying the new provisions, which talks of legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The same is true in section 18 which disapplies section 30A of the Scotland Act 1998 in regards to services.
Thanks, I guess the legislation website isn't as well maintained as I had thought it was. .
There's an understatement for the ages!
It's unforgivable really. People, normal people, should have a reasonable chance of being able to figure out what the law is if we are to live under the rule of law.
Ha Ha Ha, Tory caught lying after claiming he had just gone and read it caught red handed. The truth outs.
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
Oh Dear, you are getting worse than HYFUD and Phillip. How can the mirror change it from 45 degrees to vertical, can you not just admit it is obviously photoshopped to try and make Bozo look human.
It only looks vertical in the mirror because it’s in the same plane.
If the mirror were directly behind Johnson from our point of view it would look the same. But it's because the phone cable is pointing from Johnson towards the mirror that it creates what looks like an optical illusion.
The argument is that brexit has turbo charged the Scottish Indy movement.
The SNP would still be arguing for Indy even if remain had won. Makes 0 difference.
Makes a big difference to the support though, why do you think it is rising as we are torn out of EU and Westminster start demolishing devolution, are you blind.
I was under the impression that since Brexit has actually become a reality (the uncomfortable aspects) support for independence has fallen slightly - at least plateaued. It doesn't surprise me.
You must live in a different Scotland from me.
Looking at different polls to you, certainly. Haven't spoken to enough people (sadly) to have anything else to go on.
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that false? Didn't the UK government add to the reserved powers list in order to prevent the Scottish Parliament from having power over things that would have become devolved post-Brexit?
yes
Which part? I just looked through the Scotland Act, and there has been no amendment affecting that schedule since 2019 which was for some very minor amendments relating to social security.
Internal Market Bill, wasn't it?
Which didn't amend the Scotland Act, so it didn't add to the list of reserved powers.
Usual Tory play dumb act ( hopefully you are not as dumb as you make out) when they know all along the real answer. Westminster uses every opportunity, they have renaged on almost every supposed unwritten constitution item against Scotland , ignore the wishes of the Scottish people and their parliament.
Absolutely, Malcolm. It is what the Conservatives do in England too. They organise a sloppy referendum, which is so soggy that they get away with it before the Electoral Commission only by declaring it to be only advisory; and then, afterwards, they declare that it was binding after all. Then declare that they need dictatorial powers in order to"get Brexit done", and then ride roughshod over all our constitutional safeguards and conventions.
Their answer to all this, echoed faithfully by their sock puppets here on PB is that "we have an 80 seat majority in Parliament and we can do whatever we like". They pin their hopes on a spurious legality and pull every fast trick in the book (and a few more besides). And without trust, society breaks down.
Good luck with your campaign for an independent Scotland.
Thank you Clipp, how people in England can be fooled into voting for these absolute crooks is beyond me.
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
But just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan, since that's what we're discussing.
I'm saying she did proportionally worse than her peers. A starting position of one of the safest Labour seats certainly helps in an absolute sense.
Answer the question: is Lisa Nandy popular in Wigan or not?
Or what? lol. I was pointing out that proportionally she did much worse than her peers.
And I was pointing out that whether she did "proportionally worse than her peers" is neither here nor there when that wasn't what we were discussing.
My assertion was that Lisa Nandy is popular in Wigan. All your nonsense about swings is irrelevant to that. She got a higher percentage of the vote in Wigan than the Conservatives got in the country as a whole.
If she isn't popular, neither is the government.
I think it is relevant. Surely a personal vote would have helped buck the trend, not go in the opposite direction?
46.7% of Wigan voted for her.
Red wall voters definitely hate her.
Cons + Brexit Party got 45%. Red Wall voters definitely hate them.
So Con + Brexit Party got 45%. Lisa Nandy got 46.7.
Red Wall voters objectively and factually do not hate her. The numbers are right there in front of you.
You're carrying this straw man a long way.
Nobody said she was hated.
Nobody even said she wasn't popular.
Nandy is NOT hated in Wigan. That's a ludicrous assertion by whoever is asserting it.
No-one said she was hated. It was pointed out that she had a bigger than average swing against her in the GE. Gallowgate thinks she must therefore know more about red wall voters tgan HYUFD. Go figure!
That Lisa Nandy knows more about red wall voters than HYUFD is not an assertion that requires a tortuous debate. You just nod and move on.
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
I'm pretty sure you also said that Boris's use of the royal prerogative wasn't unlawful. Funny how that turned out.
It's almost like you're not a constitutional law expert?
I said that the first hearing of the case in the Queens' Bench (a very strong bench at that) had upheld Boris' position.
The Supreme Court took, er, a different path...
I ally myself with the Queen's Bench decision.
That's not how the law works. The Supreme Court's decision is what the law is. What the High Court said is neither here nor there. It was overruled.
Kind of puts your other opinions into perspective really.
My opinion is that in the particular instance of that case, the Supreme Court chose to be a law-making body. And a party pledging to trim the ability of the Supreme Court to make law in place of Parliament subsequently won an 80 seat majority.
Your opinion is irrelevant. The law is the law.
More accurate to say that his opinion is of no more relevance than that of any other single voter. After all, the electorate does have some indirect influence in changing laws.
So, infinitesimally relevant.
Does the UK have infinitely many voters now? It must be all those EU immigrants getting last minute citizenship!
That Tweet from Peston really ought to get him the sack. It's not so much that he's a complete fucking idiot that's the problem, it's that he's clearly looking at some weird anti-government shit on Twitter.
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that false? Didn't the UK government add to the reserved powers list in order to prevent the Scottish Parliament from having power over things that would have become devolved post-Brexit?
yes
Which part? I just looked through the Scotland Act, and there has been no amendment affecting that schedule since 2019 which was for some very minor amendments relating to social security.
Internal Market Bill, wasn't it?
Which didn't amend the Scotland Act, so it didn't add to the list of reserved powers.
Usual Tory play dumb act ( hopefully you are not as dumb as you make out) when they know all along the real answer. Westminster uses every opportunity, they have renaged on almost every supposed unwritten constitution item against Scotland , ignore the wishes of the Scottish people and their parliament.
Absolutely, Malcolm. It is what the Conservatives do in England too. They organise a sloppy referendum, which is so soggy that they get away with it before the Electoral Commission only by declaring it to be only advisory; and then, afterwards, they declare that it was binding after all. Then declare that they need dictatorial powers in order to"get Brexit done", and then ride roughshod over all our constitutional safeguards and conventions.
They may have tried to act as though it was binding but they didn't argue that in court, because it wasn't. It was an attempted moral argument.
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
Actually, given that Wigan voted 64% Leave in the 2016 referendum, Nandy did very well to hold the seat. The swing against Labour in 2019 was much higher than average in Leave seats, I believe, though I can't cite the figures.
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
But just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan, since that's what we're discussing.
I'm saying she did proportionally worse than her peers. A starting position of one of the safest Labour seats certainly helps in an absolute sense.
Answer the question: is Lisa Nandy popular in Wigan or not?
Or what? lol. I was pointing out that proportionally she did much worse than her peers.
And I was pointing out that whether she did "proportionally worse than her peers" is neither here nor there when that wasn't what we were discussing.
My assertion was that Lisa Nandy is popular in Wigan. All your nonsense about swings is irrelevant to that. She got a higher percentage of the vote in Wigan than the Conservatives got in the country as a whole.
If she isn't popular, neither is the government.
I think it is relevant. Surely a personal vote would have helped buck the trend, not go in the opposite direction?
46.7% of Wigan voted for her.
Red wall voters definitely hate her.
Cons + Brexit Party got 45%. Red Wall voters definitely hate them.
So Con + Brexit Party got 45%. Lisa Nandy got 46.7.
Red Wall voters objectively and factually do not hate her. The numbers are right there in front of you.
You're carrying this straw man a long way.
Nobody said she was hated.
Nobody even said she wasn't popular.
The assertion was that she was out of touch. Clearly her voters disagree.
The original assertion was "hapless", which AFAIK means unlucky so a strange descriptor IMO. The only other assertion was that she'd had a bigger swing against her than average.
You've argued against 3 different things (hated, unpopular, and now out of touch), none of which have been asserted by anyone today.
Rubbish. The article was clearly posted as a "LOL look at woke out of touch Nandy".
Ah, so it was the tone of the original tweet posting (which had no additional comment from HYUFD) that did it?
That Tweet from Peston really ought to get him the sack. It's not so much that he's a complete fucking idiot that's the problem, it's that he's clearly looking at some weird anti-government shit on Twitter.
It's what I'd expect from the twatbot on here, for a supposedly serious journalist to be entertaining this conspiracy bullshit is quite damning.
@YBarddCwsc thank you for the Quebec/Canada insight. It's very interesting.
It is, isn't it? And arguably even less relevant to the Scottish situation than I had realised. That issue of the ill-defined border is very interesting.
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
But just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan, since that's what we're discussing.
I'm saying she did proportionally worse than her peers. A starting position of one of the safest Labour seats certainly helps in an absolute sense.
Answer the question: is Lisa Nandy popular in Wigan or not?
Or what? lol. I was pointing out that proportionally she did much worse than her peers.
And I was pointing out that whether she did "proportionally worse than her peers" is neither here nor there when that wasn't what we were discussing.
My assertion was that Lisa Nandy is popular in Wigan. All your nonsense about swings is irrelevant to that. She got a higher percentage of the vote in Wigan than the Conservatives got in the country as a whole.
If she isn't popular, neither is the government.
I think it is relevant. Surely a personal vote would have helped buck the trend, not go in the opposite direction?
46.7% of Wigan voted for her.
Red wall voters definitely hate her.
Cons + Brexit Party got 45%. Red Wall voters definitely hate them.
So Con + Brexit Party got 45%. Lisa Nandy got 46.7.
Red Wall voters objectively and factually do not hate her. The numbers are right there in front of you.
You're carrying this straw man a long way.
Nobody said she was hated.
Nobody even said she wasn't popular.
The assertion was that she was out of touch. Clearly her voters disagree.
She's not out of touch with the red wall. She's in touch with it. A bit too in touch if anything from a North London metro prog perspective. Nevertheless I voted for her as leader.
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
Oh Dear, you are getting worse than HYFUD and Phillip. How can the mirror change it from 45 degrees to vertical, can you not just admit it is obviously photoshopped to try and make Bozo look human.
It only looks vertical in the mirror because it’s in the same plane.
If the mirror were directly behind Johnson from our point of view it would look the same. But it's because the phone cable is pointing from Johnson towards the mirror that it creates what looks like an optical illusion.
Can't believe I'm having to explain this.
I hope the next photo shows him on the phone while a man saws him in half, it'll blow twitter's mind. But I hope out hope they really would fake a photo for absolutely no reason, just for laughs.
Brexit significantly changes the nature of the union constitutional settlement
Not in law it doesn't.
I'm pretty sure you also said that Boris's use of the royal prerogative wasn't unlawful. Funny how that turned out.
It's almost like you're not a constitutional law expert?
I said that the first hearing of the case in the Queens' Bench (a very strong bench at that) had upheld Boris' position.
The Supreme Court took, er, a different path...
I ally myself with the Queen's Bench decision.
That's not how the law works. The Supreme Court's decision is what the law is. What the High Court said is neither here nor there. It was overruled.
Kind of puts your other opinions into perspective really.
My opinion is that in the particular instance of that case, the Supreme Court chose to be a law-making body. And a party pledging to trim the ability of the Supreme Court to make law in place of Parliament subsequently won an 80 seat majority.
Your opinion is irrelevant. The law is the law.
More accurate to say that his opinion is of no more relevance than that of any other single voter. After all, the electorate does have some indirect influence in changing laws.
So, infinitesimally relevant.
Does the UK have infinitely many voters now? It must be all those EU immigrants getting last minute citizenship!
Anecdotally, around 20-30% of my European friends/colleagues are in the process of getting UK citizenship and a lot of the rest are looking to do it once they meet the residency requirements and get indefinitely leave to remain. I think the whole Brexit thing has got a lot of them (unnecessarily, but understandably) worried about their long term status here and a passport is the best way to resolve it for all of them.
She is hapless, Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper would be better
Nandy holds a "red wall" seat. She knows more about them than you do, Essex boy.
She had a 9%+ swing against her at the GE - majority down from 16k to under 7k - in Wigan!
And yet she still got a higher share of the vote in Wigan than the Tories got in the GE as a whole. If she isn't popular by your metric, neither is the government.
Not at all - she was defending one of Labour's safest seats and halved her majority. Wow! you go girl!
And yet, she's still more popular in Wigan than the Conservatives are in the country as a whole.
I love that you guys are proving my point for me.
Yet proportionally she did a lot worse at the election.
No she didn't. She did a lot better at the election. 3.1% better in fact.
She is objectively more popular in Wigan than the the Conservatives are in the country as a whole. That's an undeniable fact.
You guys might not like what she says, and she may be less popular than she was, but she's objectively still popular.
So the suggestion that the likes of Essex Boy knows more about what "red wallers" want than her is laughable.
But the swing against her was much worse than overall. Of course she would do better in an absolute sense if she's defending one of the safest Labour seats in the country.
Just to check, are you saying she isn't popular in Wigan?
I was saying she did proportionally worse than in the rest of the country. I don't think that is a particularly contentious assessment given the swings.
Actually, given that Wigan voted 64% Leave in the 2016 referendum, Nandy did very well to hold the seat. The swing against Labour in 2019 was much higher than average in Leave seats, I believe, though I can't cite the figures.
This needs to be said much more often: people vote in general elections on many issues, and the EU is but one issue. Pro EU people vote for anti-EU parties, and vice versa, and there is no contradiction there whatsoever.
Phone on desk has handset in cradle as well, Trump special by the looks of it.
That, or he has two phones on his desk?
Possibly , but no way the cable can change from 45 degrees to vertical, they photoshopped it for some purpose. You would think at the money they pay their underlings they would be a bit better at it.
They are, without a shadow of a doubt, the fuck small business government. And extraordinary thing for a party which claims to revere Thatcher.
This is not the Conservative Party. They were purged by Cummings and the loyalty pledge to Brexit and Glorious Leader for the 2019 election.
What we have now is a party of English Nationalists. They kept the name, but that is about it.
To be fair to Cummings, his departure has probably made things worse, not better.
OK, he was in many ways a nasty piece of work. He was less capable than he thought he was, and borderline bonkers.
He did, however, have a coherent plan to improve the lot of the people of Britain, especially outside the London-Oxford-Cambridge golden triangle. That vision was that as many of us as possible would get qualifications in maths and physics and then set up tech firms, supported by government bungs and low regulation enabled by leaving the EU. In that way we would all become millionaires.
Admittedly, it was a fairly unworkable plan, but it was a plan. Apart from "keeping a circle of grateful minions around Boris", what's the plan now?
Respond to the daily headlines. Create a culture war. Turn people off Labour. Thats it.
Plus vaccinate faster than any major nation on Earth. Little things like that.
Not sure what that's got to do with Labour or the culture war. Care to elaborate?
Eh? The claim from @Stuartinromford was that there was no 'plan to improve the lot of the people of Britain' after Cummings; @noneoftheabove claimed in response that all the government had was playing the headlines and culture war; I pointed out that we had plans for many other things as well, which right now involves being a world leader in vaccinations. Come on, PB legal eagle.
Vaccines is a thing the government has done well. Though the UK may be heading for the curious combination of first to end the pandemic / proportionately most deaths on the way, thanks to the things the government has done badly.
In any case, there's a big gap between making one good big decision and a vision to improve the lot of the people in the longer term.
They have to hope their gamble on the 12 week gap between jabs does not backfire.
It won’t. It’s based on some sound science and decision making.
emphasise "some", many think differently and it is open to debate at present, no evidence or science to prove it is valid at present. Fingers crossed but far from certain, and based purely on crap government wanting to try and be popular by jabbing more people quickly rather than based on solid scientific evidence. Time will tell.
Whilst I understand the reflexive urge to assume the worst of the Government at all times, the evidence in this case suggests that they were clearly following medical advice.
It's not as if the change in the dosing regimen was even particularly popular. The first reaction to it was widespread whingeing from old crocs who had already had the first jab about being made to wait three months behind other people, rather than the three weeks they had originally been led to expect.
If getting single shots into as many people as possible as quickly as possible will dampen the epidemic, cause the death toll to plummet, lift pressure from the hospitals and get education and the economy moving more quickly than going at a snail's pace, then it's well worth it. If delaying the second doses were ultimately to reduce the length of protection from the vaccine, and there had to be another complete cycle of booster shots for everyone in the Autumn as a consequence, then it would still be worth it. And even if the net result is that a very large group of people all get three-quarters of the protection expected, rather than a relatively small group of people getting all of it and the others getting none at all for months, then that's probably also worth it.
This decision, according to the rationale that figures from Whitty downwards have laid out, is all about the mathematics of getting the best level of protection to the largest slice of the vulnerable population in the shortest possible period of time, and not about giving Boris Johnson an opportunity to show that the UK vaccine program is considerably more advanced than almost everybody else's. Even though it is.
Germany will become the first country in the EU to use the same experimental drug which was credited with helping former US president Donald Trump recover from Covid.
Health Minister Jens Spahn did not confirm the name of the drug manufacturer but said it was the same drug used on Mr Trump.
The experimental antibodies treatment will help protect high-risk patients in the early stage against a serious deterioration, Spahn said.
He told the Bild newspaper that the country had bought 200,000 doses and would start using it next week.
That's the Regeneron antibody cocktail, it costs hundreds of dollars per dose, that order of 200k will have cost ~$100m and it's efficacy isn't clear either. Convalescent plasma cocktails haven't proven to reduce death rates and the Regeneron antibody cocktail is still in efficacy trials. The Germans would have been better off investing $100m in vaccine manufacturing capacity.
Isn't there also concern these antibody treatment increase the likelihood of further significant mutants across populations?
Not so much for monoclonal antibodies as they are derived from a vaccine response rather than the disease itself, however, it could prove to be the case that they also lead to viral mutations in the short term.
I've got a meeting with a world leading viral immunological specialist in a few days and I'm going to ask all of these questions in mutation and vaccine evasion.
I don’t think that’s quite right. The Regeneron antibody development process is very different than just the product of a vaccine response, as they are aiming to produce monoclonal antibodies, rather than the broad spectrum polyclonal vaccine response (though it’s not entirely different, as they are immunising genetically modified mice): https://www.regeneron.com/antibodies
It’s rather the fact that the cocktail includes only a couple of antibodies to the spike protein (and also that the number of cases in which it’s used is dwarfed by the overall number of infections, so the opportunities aren’t as great), whereas both vaccine and infection responses produce a very large number of different antibodies. And that, as immune memory is laid down post antibody response, there are further opportunities for the immune system to diversify that response.
That’s my very much non-expert understanding, so I’d be very interested in your contact’s answers.
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
Twitter is going to be seen as humanity's biggest error of the 21st century.
LOL, Tories prefer tame propaganda units shocker from a couple of cultists
This place was so much better when you were banned, Malc. It's a shame the mods lifted it.
How Tory Max, I would not expect a right wing zealot like yourself to prefer democracy , you would rather read your own mince and think how smart you are. Speaking in an echo chamber is no great feat.Stick to the chumocracy and don't get out of your depth talking to real people.
Phone on desk has handset in cradle as well, Trump special by the looks of it.
That, or he has two phones on his desk?
Possibly , but no way the cable can change from 45 degrees to vertical, they photoshopped it for some purpose. You would think at the money they pay their underlings they would be a bit better at it.
You've definitely lost your marbles if you believe that.
Phone on desk has handset in cradle as well, Trump special by the looks of it.
That, or he has two phones on his desk?
Possibly , but no way the cable can change from 45 degrees to vertical, they photoshopped it for some purpose. You would think at the money they pay their underlings they would be a bit better at it.
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
Twitter is going to be seen as humanity's biggest error of the 21st century.
LOL, Tories prefer tame propaganda units shocker from a couple of cultists
This place was so much better when you were banned, Malc. It's a shame the mods lifted it.
How Tory Max, I would not expect a right wing zealot like yourself to prefer democracy , you would rather read your own mince and think how smart you are. Speaking in an echo chamber is no great feat.Stick to the chumocracy and don't get out of your depth talking to real people.
Does Peston understand angles? It's right there in the mirror.
Twitter is going to be seen as humanity's biggest error of the 21st century.
LOL, Tories prefer tame propaganda units shocker from a couple of cultists
This place was so much better when you were banned, Malc. It's a shame the mods lifted it.
How Tory Max, I would not expect a right wing zealot like yourself to prefer democracy , you would rather read your own mince and think how smart you are. Speaking in an echo chamber is no great feat.Stick to the chumocracy and don't get out of your depth talking to real people.
As much as I want Scotland to vote for independence, I'm willing to live with another bout of you lot bottling it just to see your reaction, Malc. Hopefully a really close one as well just to rub it in.
I've always held to the idea that I could sit down with any PBer and have a pint and we would have a great time. You are the exception that proves the rule. Congratulations.
They are, without a shadow of a doubt, the fuck small business government. And extraordinary thing for a party which claims to revere Thatcher.
This is not the Conservative Party. They were purged by Cummings and the loyalty pledge to Brexit and Glorious Leader for the 2019 election.
What we have now is a party of English Nationalists. They kept the name, but that is about it.
To be fair to Cummings, his departure has probably made things worse, not better.
OK, he was in many ways a nasty piece of work. He was less capable than he thought he was, and borderline bonkers.
He did, however, have a coherent plan to improve the lot of the people of Britain, especially outside the London-Oxford-Cambridge golden triangle. That vision was that as many of us as possible would get qualifications in maths and physics and then set up tech firms, supported by government bungs and low regulation enabled by leaving the EU. In that way we would all become millionaires.
Admittedly, it was a fairly unworkable plan, but it was a plan. Apart from "keeping a circle of grateful minions around Boris", what's the plan now?
Respond to the daily headlines. Create a culture war. Turn people off Labour. Thats it.
Plus vaccinate faster than any major nation on Earth. Little things like that.
Not sure what that's got to do with Labour or the culture war. Care to elaborate?
Eh? The claim from @Stuartinromford was that there was no 'plan to improve the lot of the people of Britain' after Cummings; @noneoftheabove claimed in response that all the government had was playing the headlines and culture war; I pointed out that we had plans for many other things as well, which right now involves being a world leader in vaccinations. Come on, PB legal eagle.
Vaccines is a thing the government has done well. Though the UK may be heading for the curious combination of first to end the pandemic / proportionately most deaths on the way, thanks to the things the government has done badly.
In any case, there's a big gap between making one good big decision and a vision to improve the lot of the people in the longer term.
They have to hope their gamble on the 12 week gap between jabs does not backfire.
It won’t. It’s based on some sound science and decision making.
emphasise "some", many think differently and it is open to debate at present, no evidence or science to prove it is valid at present. Fingers crossed but far from certain, and based purely on crap government wanting to try and be popular by jabbing more people quickly rather than based on solid scientific evidence. Time will tell.
Whilst I understand the reflexive urge to assume the worst of the Government at all times, the evidence in this case suggests that they were clearly following medical advice.
It's not as if the change in the dosing regimen was even particularly popular. The first reaction to it was widespread whingeing from old crocs who had already had the first jab about being made to wait three months behind other people, rather than the three weeks they had originally been led to expect.
If getting single shots into as many people as possible as quickly as possible will dampen the epidemic, cause the death toll to plummet, lift pressure from the hospitals and get education and the economy moving more quickly than going at a snail's pace, then it's well worth it. If delaying the second doses were ultimately to reduce the length of protection from the vaccine, and there had to be another complete cycle of booster shots for everyone in the Autumn as a consequence, then it would still be worth it. And even if the net result is that a very large group of people all get three-quarters of the protection expected, rather than a relatively small group of people getting all of it and the others getting none at all for months, then that's probably also worth it.
This decision, according to the rationale that figures from Whitty downwards have laid out, is all about the mathematics of getting the best level of protection to the largest slice of the vulnerable population in the shortest possible period of time, and not about giving Boris Johnson an opportunity to show that the UK vaccine program is considerably more advanced than almost everybody else's. Even though it is.
Agreed. I’m not at all fond of the government, but this was done following the science advisors’ consensus. It was something of a gamble, as there are significant risks involved, and it was far from uncontested, but (fingers crossed) it is beginning to look as though it was justified.
What most struck me about the Sunday Times piece is that only 50% of Scots want a referendum in the next 5 years and that support for independence was only 52-48. These are not the sort of figures to inspire confidence that Scotland will go down the independence route.
Ireland will be united sooner or later. It was the inevitable consequence of planting a border in the Irish sea, though in truth it has been headed that way for some time. Alastair's quite wrong to pin this on the DUP. The ethnic outlook of N Ireland has been changing and support for the union receding.
Good morning everybody. I seem to recall that, in other circumstances, 52-48 was held to be enough for some pretty significant changes.
Yes and given last 19 polls have had a range from 52-59 for Independence it is a big bit misleading into the bargain.
I know these are stories about fringe outriders, but the Government gets into trouble more generally over this issue because of its chronic dishonesty and obfuscation, and its terrible lack of communication skills.
Broadly speaking, one gets the impression that it wants to be very cautious but is afraid of making itself wildly unpopular if it is honest about the aim. So we get these dispiriting backpedalling announcements - first, the easing of restrictions will be considered in mid-February. Then there's a vague aspiration that the schools might come back in March. Then the timetable gets pushed back to Easter. Now (admittedly in the nutty Express, but it would be no surprise if it started cropping up elsewhere in the next five minutes,) dark mutterings about September. Even if the more pessimistic timetables are being made up by the newspapers, they're merely filling a vacuum created by the Government itself.
I got into trouble for going on about excuses the other day, but I think in the right context it's valid to use the word nonetheless: instead of being upfront about what they want to do, they will fib and prevaricate until forced, and then pull out some piece of scientific advice or another and deploy it as an excuse to discard their false platitudes and do what they intended from the outset. It's why we really do need at least a broad and realistic timetable, and to understand the parameters which will determine exactly when each step can be delivered.
The people who want all the restrictions gone in the next two months will be incandescent if, for example, the Government says it isn't minded to let pubs open or let people go to each others' houses until everyone over 40 has been vaccinated twice, but they're going to be even more angry if they are given no information at all (or, worse, led to believe in a rapid outcome) and then disappointed later.
The Government is currently behaving like a man with a toothache who's in deep denial and doesn't want to make an expensive and painful trip to the dentist. It either won't talk about the problem or downplays it, all the while medicating with painkillers and knowing deep down that the treatment has to take place, and putting it off is just making the eventual outcome all the more agonising.
If you think that we're all going to have to sit at home mouldering until June, or that the schools will be mothballed until September, or that foreign holidays are to be banned for the rest of the year, then don't keep it to yourselves. Tell us and explain why, FFS.
Comments
It's unforgivable really. People, normal people, should have a reasonable chance of being able to figure out what the law is if we are to live under the rule of law.
Their answer to all this, echoed faithfully by their sock puppets here on PB is that "we have an 80 seat majority in Parliament and we can do whatever we like". They pin their hopes on a spurious legality and pull every fast trick in the book (and a few more besides). And without trust, society breaks down.
Good luck with your campaign for an independent Scotland.
I've done it in 18 minutes in a 996 Carrera S with Icelandic reg. plates I got off eBay.
It's not at the same angle in the reflection the same way that his arm is at a different angle in the reflection.
You might not be able to tell from Spain but Wigan voted Labour and so did many northern urban constituencies.
Another advantage of bilingualism in Canada is that the PM is -- de facto -- bilingual. It is an unwritten law.
So there is an intellectual hurdle for the PM to overcome.
It acts as a safety valve to prevent the really stupid ever becoming Canadian PM.
To be fair to Pesto, he has demonstrated a complete inability to deal with all the icky, geeky numbers stuff.
Not being up to handling angles of reflection would be entirely in his wheelhouse.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong.
What more is there to say?
The locals get to decide what the place should be called. Everyone else, live with it.
I'd suggest she did about par in 2019 given where her seat is. Like most MPs she is no more or less popular than her party.
Wentworth and Dearne: -24.7 pp
Barnsley Central: -23.8 pp
Doncaster North: -22.1 pp
Barnsley East: -21.9 pp
Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford: -21.6 pp
Jarrow: -20.0 pp
Kingston upon Hull East: -19.1 pp
Houghton and Sunderland South: -18.7 pp
Washington and Sunderland West: -18.2 pp
Easington: -18.2 pp
Doncaster Central: -17.9 pp
Leicester East: -16.2 pp
South Shields: -15.9 pp
Torfaen: -15.8 pp
North Durham: -15.7 pp
West Bromwich East: -15.7 pp
Wigan: -15.5 pp
Middlesbrough: -15.2 pp
Makerfield: -15.1 pp
Wansbeck: -15.1 pp
North Tyneside: -14.8 pp
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney: -14.3 pp
Islwyn: -14.1 pp
Kingston upon Hull North: -14.0 pp
Denton and Reddish: -13.5 pp
Ogmore: -12.7 pp
Sheffield South East: -12.4 pp
Ashton-Under-Lyne: -12.3 pp
Stalybridge and Hyde: -12.3 pp
Wolverhampton South East: -11.8 pp
Swansea East: -11.6 pp
Gateshead: -11.5 pp
Leeds East: -11.5 pp
St Helens North: -11.5 pp
Huddersfield: -11.4 pp
Worsley and Eccles South: -11.3 pp
Stockport: -11.3 pp
Leicester West: -11.1 pp
Nottingham North: -11.1 pp
Brent North: -11.0 pp
Coventry North East: -10.8 pp
Hayes and Harlington: -10.7 pp
Luton South: -10.6 pp
Hampstead and Kilburn: -10.1 pp
York Central: -10.0 pp
Oldham West and Royton: -9.9 pp
Rhondda: -9.7 pp
Sheffield, Heeley: -9.7 pp
Cynon Valley: -9.6 pp
Bristol South: -9.5 pp
Erith and Thamesmead: -9.5 pp
Ealing North: -9.5 pp
Feltham and Heston: -9.2 pp
Southampton, Test: -9.2 pp
Wythenshawe and Sale East: -8.9 pp
Leeds West: -8.9 pp
Blaenau Gwent: -8.8 pp
Exeter: -8.8 pp
Luton North: -8.7 pp
Salford and Eccles: -8.7 pp
Harrow West: -8.4 pp
Ealing Central and Acton: -8.4 pp
Walsall South: -8.2 pp
Oxford East: -8.2 pp
Swansea West: -8.1 pp
Hornsey and Wood Green: -7.9 pp
Bolton South East: -7.7 pp
Birmingham, Erdington: -7.7 pp
Greenwich and Woolwich: -7.6 pp
Bristol East: -7.6 pp
Newcastle Upon Tyne Central: -7.3 pp
Derby South: -7.3 pp
Ilford North: -7.2 pp
Norwich South: -7.2 pp
Brentford and Isleworth: -7.2 pp
Nottingham South: -7.1 pp
Tooting: -6.9 pp
Birmingham, Selly Oak: -6.9 pp
Brighton, Kemptown: -6.8 pp
West Lancashire: -6.8 pp
Islington South and Finsbury: -6.6 pp
Stretford and Urmston: -6.5 pp
Rochdale: -6.4 pp
Enfield North: -6.2 pp
Wirral South: -6.1 pp
Hammersmith: -6.0 pp
Hove: -5.8 pp
Ellesmere Port and Neston: -5.8 pp
Westminster North: -5.7 pp
Leeds North East: -5.6 pp
Sefton Central: -5.5 pp
Lewisham West and Penge: -5.4 pp
Cardiff South and Penarth: -5.4 pp
Slough: -5.3 pp
Bristol West: -3.7 pp
Bradford East: -2.4 pp
Birmingham, Yardley: -2.3 pp
Vauxhall: -1.2 pp
Cardiff Central: -1.2 pp
Bradford West: 11.5 pp
You may "support the High Court" but that's irrelevant. The Supreme Court held they were wrong so they were wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEGtpSvGXEA
You've argued against 3 different things (hated, unpopular, and now out of touch), none of which have been asserted by anyone today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTfDT0kMnS8
You can easily work for the federal government and live in Quebec.
In fact, that is the significance of the "Non" result from the Hull/Chapleau riding -- it is just across the river from Ottawa, but it is in Quebec. It was more strongly against independence even than the English-speaking Western Montreal ridings.
Can't believe I'm having to explain this.
But I hope out hope they really would fake a photo for absolutely no reason, just for laughs.
https://twitter.com/JuliaHB1/status/1352345013980688384?s=20
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1353278298646831106?s=20
Johnson speaks a great many languages.
Sturgeon so far as I know only speaks English.
I’m not sure your premise is valid...
Edit - doesn’t Paul Davies speak Welsh as his first language as well?
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1353327760371027970?s=20
"As he assumed" rowing back furiously.
Any comment @malcolmg ?
It's not as if the change in the dosing regimen was even particularly popular. The first reaction to it was widespread whingeing from old crocs who had already had the first jab about being made to wait three months behind other people, rather than the three weeks they had originally been led to expect.
If getting single shots into as many people as possible as quickly as possible will dampen the epidemic, cause the death toll to plummet, lift pressure from the hospitals and get education and the economy moving more quickly than going at a snail's pace, then it's well worth it. If delaying the second doses were ultimately to reduce the length of protection from the vaccine, and there had to be another complete cycle of booster shots for everyone in the Autumn as a consequence, then it would still be worth it. And even if the net result is that a very large group of people all get three-quarters of the protection expected, rather than a relatively small group of people getting all of it and the others getting none at all for months, then that's probably also worth it.
This decision, according to the rationale that figures from Whitty downwards have laid out, is all about the mathematics of getting the best level of protection to the largest slice of the vulnerable population in the shortest possible period of time, and not about giving Boris Johnson an opportunity to show that the UK vaccine program is considerably more advanced than almost everybody else's. Even though it is.
The Regeneron antibody development process is very different than just the product of a vaccine response, as they are aiming to produce monoclonal antibodies, rather than the broad spectrum polyclonal vaccine response (though it’s not entirely different, as they are immunising genetically modified mice):
https://www.regeneron.com/antibodies
It’s rather the fact that the cocktail includes only a couple of antibodies to the spike protein (and also that the number of cases in which it’s used is dwarfed by the overall number of infections, so the opportunities aren’t as great), whereas both vaccine and infection responses produce a very large number of different antibodies. And that, as immune memory is laid down post antibody response, there are further opportunities for the immune system to diversify that response.
That’s my very much non-expert understanding, so I’d be very interested in your contact’s answers.
Please malc, stand back from the edge.
And it can, through a reflection. Get a mirror and look for yourself.
NEW THREAD
https://youtu.be/MMiKyfd6hA0
I've always held to the idea that I could sit down with any PBer and have a pint and we would have a great time. You are the exception that proves the rule. Congratulations.
I’m not at all fond of the government, but this was done following the science advisors’ consensus. It was something of a gamble, as there are significant risks involved, and it was far from uncontested, but (fingers crossed) it is beginning to look as though it was justified.
First dose 443,330
Second dose 774
Total 444,104
Yesterday 425,596
Last week 277,209
Broadly speaking, one gets the impression that it wants to be very cautious but is afraid of making itself wildly unpopular if it is honest about the aim. So we get these dispiriting backpedalling announcements - first, the easing of restrictions will be considered in mid-February. Then there's a vague aspiration that the schools might come back in March. Then the timetable gets pushed back to Easter. Now (admittedly in the nutty Express, but it would be no surprise if it started cropping up elsewhere in the next five minutes,) dark mutterings about September. Even if the more pessimistic timetables are being made up by the newspapers, they're merely filling a vacuum created by the Government itself.
I got into trouble for going on about excuses the other day, but I think in the right context it's valid to use the word nonetheless: instead of being upfront about what they want to do, they will fib and prevaricate until forced, and then pull out some piece of scientific advice or another and deploy it as an excuse to discard their false platitudes and do what they intended from the outset. It's why we really do need at least a broad and realistic timetable, and to understand the parameters which will determine exactly when each step can be delivered.
The people who want all the restrictions gone in the next two months will be incandescent if, for example, the Government says it isn't minded to let pubs open or let people go to each others' houses until everyone over 40 has been vaccinated twice, but they're going to be even more angry if they are given no information at all (or, worse, led to believe in a rapid outcome) and then disappointed later.
The Government is currently behaving like a man with a toothache who's in deep denial and doesn't want to make an expensive and painful trip to the dentist. It either won't talk about the problem or downplays it, all the while medicating with painkillers and knowing deep down that the treatment has to take place, and putting it off is just making the eventual outcome all the more agonising.
If you think that we're all going to have to sit at home mouldering until June, or that the schools will be mothballed until September, or that foreign holidays are to be banned for the rest of the year, then don't keep it to yourselves. Tell us and explain why, FFS.