Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Scotland was only ever a week or so behind on vaccinations, and is down to a couple of days now. Obviously that's been a big story for a couple of weeks, but will probably fade pretty quickly.
A much bigger worry for Sturgeon just now is that she'd promised to reopen early school years in a week, with only weak caveating, which people didn't really hear. Yet the fall in cases in Scotland has pretty much stalled in the last few days.
So now she gets a choice between either upsetting parents who are desperate for a break from their wee darlings, or risking starting another wave that would quickly take Scotland to the top of the case rate table.
There have been hints for a few days that they will go for Option 1:
I don’t honestly see what they would have to lose by putting the provisional start date for early years back to 8th March. That would bring them in line with England and give more time to play with for secondaries, which are the most dangerous ones in epidemiological terms.
Talking of being in line, that was annoying from Rahane. England now unlikely to save the follow on.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
Re Scotland and Wales on vaccination ... it's obviously all because of the UK's procurement, commission, rollout. That's Boris not the bit-part players in devolved powers.
Tony Blair demonstrated that you can have an utterly vacuous meme and galvanise the country.
I'm convinced Boris is doing the same. Coming out of this pandemic on the back of a stunning vaccination rollout I'm convinced he'll win a landslide.
You don't need massive policy grandstanding. Most people are happy enough with an ebullient figure making them feel better. Tony Blair did it. Boris likewise.
You may well be right. But I think you are going way too early. Johnson now has an economic recovery to deliver and one that has to work for the two very different parts of the principally quite old Tory voting coalition. From where I sit, the only way to keep it together still looks like culture war - but that spells ongoing division and a lot of people not feeling better. Throw in a patchy recovery on top, perpetual constitutional upheaval and the next few years interesting. A pitch to end Tory-created divisions and to rebuild a better, united UK may work. We'll see.
I dont think its sour grapes to say this isnt really a suitable pitch for a 5 day match.
Channel 4 commentator thinks its unlikely that India would enforce the follow on.
At least let no one complain the next time English grounds staff prepare a seaming, green top and England run through a sub continent side like a hot knife through butter. This pitch is probably just about acceptable (300-6) but surely it was a massive gamble on winning the toss?
Re Scotland and Wales on vaccination ... it's obviously all because of the UK's procurement, commission, rollout. That's Boris not the bit-part players in devolved powers.
And Hancock and a special shout out to his choice of movies.
Tony Blair demonstrated that you can have an utterly vacuous meme and galvanise the country.
I'm convinced Boris is doing the same. Coming out of this pandemic on the back of a stunning vaccination rollout I'm convinced he'll win a landslide.
You don't need massive policy grandstanding. Most people are happy enough with an ebullient figure making them feel better. Tony Blair did it. Boris likewise.
I don't know. At the time Blair appeared to represent something different. Culturally modern, in favour of social justice AND aspiration. With hindsight it all looks different.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
I dont think its sour grapes to say this isnt really a suitable pitch for a 5 day match.
Channel 4 commentator thinks its unlikely that India would enforce the follow on.
At least let no one complain the next time English grounds staff prepare a seaming, green top and England run through a sub continent side like a hot knife through butter. This pitch is probably just about acceptable (300-6) but surely it was a massive gamble on winning the toss?
Unless it was a two-headed coin.
Glad I wasn’t the only one thinking that!
8 down now, follow-on a real possibility after tea.
Tony Blair demonstrated that you can have an utterly vacuous meme and galvanise the country.
I'm convinced Boris is doing the same. Coming out of this pandemic on the back of a stunning vaccination rollout I'm convinced he'll win a landslide.
You don't need massive policy grandstanding. Most people are happy enough with an ebullient figure making them feel better. Tony Blair did it. Boris likewise.
Do you think he's going to try calling another snap election? That'd be a brave prediction.
Failing that, the Government is going to have to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of Covid and may very well have to cope with significant structural unemployment. A lot of businesses - notably in bricks and mortar retail - have already folded or will do so; others have been forced to adapt to new ways of doing things and may no longer need so many employees. Rishi Sunak's exalted status as the nation's favourite politician is unlikely to survive the end of furlough and a programme of tax rises.
Labour has a massive task on its hands to get all the way to a majority in one go, but the possibility of a hung Parliament come the next election seems all too realistic.
If it's possible to remove such restrictions that would be great. But acting according to the calendar and not the situation on the ground is intensely stupid.
I dont think its sour grapes to say this isnt really a suitable pitch for a 5 day match.
Channel 4 commentator thinks its unlikely that India would enforce the follow on.
At least let no one complain the next time English grounds staff prepare a seaming, green top and England run through a sub continent side like a hot knife through butter. This pitch is probably just about acceptable (300-6) but surely it was a massive gamble on winning the toss?
Unless it was a two-headed coin.
Away team calls. So a two headed coin is *still* a gamble... unless you have a two headed and a two tailed, and are adept at switching...
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Then how the hell are the likes of Mogg and Patel still in it?
Rees-Mogg is retained for a shits-n-giggles link to the 18th century.
Moving Patel out would look racist. Or something. But frankly, the real reason is because no-one is brave enough to tell her she's gone..... Are you?
The predicted reshuffle early this year didn`t happen and I think that, at root, Johnson doesn`t like giving bad news to people, is indecisive and prone to having his mind changed by the last person he spoke to.
Accordingly, it wouldn`t surprise me if we went all the way to 2024 with no reshuffle, or at least only very few changes.
I think that's right. If Allegra etc didn't/couldn't persuade PM Johnson to change his mind about the cabinet Dominic C suggested, I doubt whether we'll see many, if any changes.
Excellent header, though Sturgeon popular in England? (My evidence to the contrary would only be anecdotal, I admit, but I do often wonder who YouGov ask in their polling.)
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
We should all want that.
If all over 50s are vaccinated, all under 50s who are vulnerable are vaccinated, the prevalence across the country has been squished and the R rate under control from most of the adult population being vaccinated then there should be little reason for draconian laws.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations.
On the other more positive side for Labour if they gave the SNP an independence referendum they won and Scots narrowly voted to stay in the UK, then at the next general election they could hope to win back lots of their former Scottish seats from the SNP, Scottish nationalism having been dealt a fatal blow, thus delivering a Labour majority across the UK, much as the Tories winning seats from the LDs finally delivered them a majority in 2015
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
They are nutters if they think Theresa May is coming back as PM....
I actually think that by the end of May, even Tier 1 restrictions could be hard to justify.
One appreciates why the New Zealand Government is coming under pressure re: the lack of vaccinations. The flipside of a successful elimination campaign is that the potential costs of letting the disease re-establish are so huge that finding any cases at all in the community = panic and lockdowns.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
There are strengths and weaknesses and the UK is doing much better now but still not perfect. Apart from on vaccinations, which is simply stellar.
Lol - you can't answer the question - who "has handled it best" - because your answer is now "Johnson" and even you know its laughable.
Our vaccine roll-out programme is stunning. That doesn't negate the many tens of thousands this government killed unnecessarily, the multiple and continued bungles, the ongoing lack of any support for large sectors of the economy etc etc etc. We could be enjoying our stunning vaccine roll-out having NOT fucked up everything before that.
So yes, Sturgeon remains the UK leader who has handled the pandemic the best . Despite your "I'm not a Tory now honest" Johnson fangirlism.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
So Ebony one-day-player reckons there won’t be a follow-on enforced.
There is always the fear/worry about batting last. Seems remote, but say eng are made to follow on, and somehow scrape 300, with a chase of around 100 on *that* pitch, with more wear? Why not instead pile on some more runs, add some more wear and then try to bowl eng out? It’s only day 2. There is no prize for winning as soon as possible.
Tony Blair demonstrated that you can have an utterly vacuous meme and galvanise the country.
I'm convinced Boris is doing the same. Coming out of this pandemic on the back of a stunning vaccination rollout I'm convinced he'll win a landslide.
You don't need massive policy grandstanding. Most people are happy enough with an ebullient figure making them feel better. Tony Blair did it. Boris likewise.
You may well be right. But I think you are going way too early.
You too could be correct. There's a long way to go until 2024. However, I think the FTPA will be repealed and Boris will go to the country in 2023. May be wrong. For the benefits of Brexit to come through post-covid may take a long time.
I'm increasingly of the view though that the economy isn't critical to that many voters. Radical, I know, and it's a change in my position from, say, 10 years ago.
Boris will portray Starmer as the man who would have tied us to EU regulation including the EMA. You know, the kind which stopped all their citizens getting vaccinated.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
We should all want that.
If all over 50s are vaccinated, all under 50s who are vulnerable are vaccinated, the prevalence across the country has been squished and the R rate under control from most of the adult population being vaccinated then there should be little reason for draconian laws.
Well of course we all WANT that. But these MPs are suggesting now that restrictions should be lifted ANYWAY at a specific time in the future regardless. Sorry, they qualify as Nutters.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
There are strengths and weaknesses and the UK is doing much better now but still not perfect. Apart from on vaccinations, which is simply stellar.
England is still doing pretty badly at keeping people alive- way worse than anywhere else in the British Isles:
It's got buried in the vaccine good news, but Boris's last visible mess-up was only six weeks ago. Remember opening schools for a day? Quarantine hotels don't look impressively done either.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
We should all want that.
If all over 50s are vaccinated, all under 50s who are vulnerable are vaccinated, the prevalence across the country has been squished and the R rate under control from most of the adult population being vaccinated then there should be little reason for draconian laws.
Absolutely. This is the final lockdown. The corollary of our stunning vaccination rollout will be telling the pessimists where to go. If that means living with a bit of non-fatal covid, so be it.
There is a hole in his [Hancock's] plan so big that it can be seen by a moon-based astronaut with a foggy visor. It has little of substance to say about the crisis in adult social care. The pandemic has taken more than 25,000 lives in care homes and pitilessly underlined the myriad problems in the sector. On the day that he first stood outside Number 10, Boris Johnson declared that he was determined to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve”. Since when, no plan has materialised. If he ever really possessed one, he appears to have mislaid it. Or perhaps Dilyn the Downing Street dog has eaten it. Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success.
He makes a case for urgency on the grounds that we need to get on with implementing the lessons from the coronavirus. That sounds reasonable until you remember that the government of which Mr Hancock is a member is led by Boris Johnson. The prime minister keeps resisting demands for a public inquiry on the grounds that we can’t “learn the lessons” until the crisis is over. Embarking on another round of NHS “reform” does not make much sense until we have a complete understanding of what worked and what didn’t during the gravest public health emergency in a century. You can’t put things right until you know precisely what went wrong.
One appreciates why the New Zealand Government is coming under pressure re: the lack of vaccinations. The flipside of a successful elimination campaign is that the potential costs of letting the disease re-establish are so huge that finding any cases at all in the community = panic and lockdowns.
NZ and other so far low-prevalence countries may suffer in future as the virus "fills the gaps". No natural immunity - If they don`t vaccinate they`ll be in trouble.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
We should all want that.
If all over 50s are vaccinated, all under 50s who are vulnerable are vaccinated, the prevalence across the country has been squished and the R rate under control from most of the adult population being vaccinated then there should be little reason for draconian laws.
Absolutely. This is the final lockdown. The corollary of our stunning vaccination rollout will be telling the pessimists where to go. If that means living with a bit of non-fatal covid, so be it.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
I absolutely agree.
It is one of many great things about OGH is that he allows thread writers to explore nuance rather than go for tweet length threads which are the epitome of simplicity and anti-nuance.
So anyone who bemoans the length of PB threads are the ones encouraging social media simplicity and the loss of nuance.
As the King of nuance and subtlety, I really do appreciate OGH giving me the opportunity to do threads.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
I absolutely agree.
It is one of many great things about OGH is that he allows thread writers to explore nuance rather than go for tweet length threads which are the epitome of simplicity and anti-nuance.
So anyone who bemoans the length of PB threads are the ones encouraging social media simplicity and the loss of nuance.
As the King of nuance and subtlety, I really do appreciate OGH giving me the opportunity to do threads.
Bizarre to attack Starmer for having a flag of his own country in the background.
A bit snowflakey to characterise it as an ‘attack’. D’ye think it was a genius move for a ppb in Scotland?
He's trying to be the voice of the unionist vote, right?
Far be it from me to advise Lab on their North British strategy but that’s a shrinking pool with some more comfortable and enthusiastic competitors splashing about in it. It also somewhat blunts the ‘let’s get away from narrow nationalism’ schtick that’s a perennial cry for Labour in Scotland, insofar as there are many folk who still fall for it.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
We should all want that.
If all over 50s are vaccinated, all under 50s who are vulnerable are vaccinated, the prevalence across the country has been squished and the R rate under control from most of the adult population being vaccinated then there should be little reason for draconian laws.
Wanting it and demanding it be set in stone regardless of what happens are two very different things.
One of the weaknesses with the current ‘path out of lockdown’ demands is that they want dates rather than the situation to be the deciding factor.
As we saw in Wales in November, this is a very bad idea.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
We should all want that.
If all over 50s are vaccinated, all under 50s who are vulnerable are vaccinated, the prevalence across the country has been squished and the R rate under control from most of the adult population being vaccinated then there should be little reason for draconian laws.
Wanting it and demanding it be set in stone regardless of what happens are two very different things.
One of the weaknesses with the current ‘path out of lockdown’ demands is that they want dates rather than the situation to be the deciding factor.
As we saw in Wales in November, this is a very bad idea.
Yep. We have a year of experience that tells us viruses don’t work to timetables!
There is a hole in his [Hancock's] plan so big that it can be seen by a moon-based astronaut with a foggy visor. It has little of substance to say about the crisis in adult social care. The pandemic has taken more than 25,000 lives in care homes and pitilessly underlined the myriad problems in the sector. On the day that he first stood outside Number 10, Boris Johnson declared that he was determined to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve”. Since when, no plan has materialised. If he ever really possessed one, he appears to have mislaid it. Or perhaps Dilyn the Downing Street dog has eaten it. Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success.
He makes a case for urgency on the grounds that we need to get on with implementing the lessons from the coronavirus. That sounds reasonable until you remember that the government of which Mr Hancock is a member is led by Boris Johnson. The prime minister keeps resisting demands for a public inquiry on the grounds that we can’t “learn the lessons” until the crisis is over. Embarking on another round of NHS “reform” does not make much sense until we have a complete understanding of what worked and what didn’t during the gravest public health emergency in a century. You can’t put things right until you know precisely what went wrong.
"Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success."
Always the same problem. The old (and, by extension, their expectant heirs) won't pay. The shrinking working age population can't pay. So lofty words are uttered, but nothing is actually done.
Social care policy consists, in crude terms, of rationing the care and hoping that too many people don't moan too loudly. Because the alternative is something like the dementia tax, a policy so catastrophic that it very nearly let Jeremy Corbyn take over. There'll be no repetition of that mistake.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
I absolutely agree.
It is one of many great things about OGH is that he allows thread writers to explore nuance rather than go for tweet length threads which are the epitome of simplicity and anti-nuance.
So anyone who bemoans the length of PB threads are the ones encouraging social media simplicity and the loss of nuance.
As the King of nuance and subtlety, I really do appreciate OGH giving me the opportunity to do threads.
You are as subtle as Good Queen Bess in the Blackadder series.
(Which actually links quite nicely to the thread header.)
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs. The SNP then demanded indyref2 as the price of their support.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Tony Blair demonstrated that you can have an utterly vacuous meme and galvanise the country.
I'm convinced Boris is doing the same. Coming out of this pandemic on the back of a stunning vaccination rollout I'm convinced he'll win a landslide.
You don't need massive policy grandstanding. Most people are happy enough with an ebullient figure making them feel better. Tony Blair did it. Boris likewise.
You may well be right. But I think you are going way too early.
You too could be correct. There's a long way to go until 2024. However, I think the FTPA will be repealed and Boris will go to the country in 2023. May be wrong. For the benefits of Brexit to come through post-covid may take a long time.
I'm increasingly of the view though that the economy isn't critical to that many voters. Radical, I know, and it's a change in my position from, say, 10 years ago.
Boris will portray Starmer as the man who would have tied us to EU regulation including the EMA. You know, the kind which stopped all their citizens getting vaccinated.
Curtains for Labour. Sadly.
Yep, that will be the Tory tactic now that they have given up the pragmatic, Unionist, pro-business, competence calling card that they always used as their selling point. The question is how many will buy it. There will be a lot of unwinding over the next 18 months - especially after the post-lockdown mini-boom subsides. It could be that 2023 is too late. I think the Tories need to be polling 43% plus on a regular basis before they can be confident of winning the next GE sweat-free.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Just read the article, look at the numbers and stop digging.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
There are strengths and weaknesses and the UK is doing much better now but still not perfect. Apart from on vaccinations, which is simply stellar.
England is still doing pretty badly at keeping people alive- way worse than anywhere else in the British Isles:
It's got buried in the vaccine good news, but Boris's last visible mess-up was only six weeks ago. Remember opening schools for a day? Quarantine hotels don't look impressively done either.
Yes, it is back to the usual bungling.
The next election will be about constitutional issues, despite people being bored sick of them. SNP want their referendum, and the Labour view on that is a critical decision for them. I think it winnable for the Union under a Labour government, but far from certain.
The post Brexit debate will centre on two issues:
1) Free markets or protectionism? Brexit was won by a coalition of Free marketeer leaders and a voter base who want to roll back globalism, and protect jobs from foreigners. That is not an easy combination to continue. One or other has to give. If the Tories follow their Singapore on Thames instincts (never on Trent or Tees...) the backlash from the purple wall could be fatal to their majority.
2) How much to soften/harden the border with the EU/NI. Smoothing trade and permitting limited FoM for essential workers requires some degree of pooled sovereignty.
I don't think Scottish representation during withdrawal negotiations would be much of a practical problem. The UK kept MEPs throughout Brexit negotiations.
I do think parties led by Starmer, Davey and Sturgeon would manage a hung Parliament better than the last hung Parliament.
What practical powers did MEPs have during Brexit negotiations? My understanding was all they could do was approve or reject the final trading agreement, negotiated by the council with that self important twat Juncker shoving his oar in repeatedly on behalf of the Commission.
This obviously would be much less power than Scottish MPs would have. After all, Parliament can remove a Prime Minister at any moment it chooses.
But if there’s more to it than that, feel free to enlighten me.
A Lab/SNP coalition during the negotiation phase would be a proper constitutional crisis. We could have SNP ministers ‘negotiating’ on the UK side.
A good UK government will have learned from the EU, and have a two-stage process - with debt, currency and border the only three subjects for discussion in the first phase.
I think it would be far better to have the negotiations on terms of separation before the vote. It would inform the debate usefully and be simpler to implement. A lesson of Brexit.
Even more problematic if SNP votes are supporting the government. They would try and insist on every unicorn in their manifesto.
SNP vs DUP/ERG 🤷♂️
OR, concede the referendum and elect a new government to negotiate the terms.
Personally I am tired of nutters, nationalists and other extremists having the whip hand in British politics.
But unless we elect a Liberal Democrat majority govt, we are unfortunately stuck with them.
When do you plan to exclude the nutters from the LibDems?
If Layla Moran and Wera Hobhouse lose their seats to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, the rest are OK.
For Labour, it’s rather more.
For the Tories it’s rapidly becoming the bloody lot.
For the SNP, we’re there already.
I actually think the Tory quotient of nutters in Westminster is reducing. From what I am seeing, the new intake are very light on Bufton-Tufton speak first, think later (if at all) types. UKIP with its bongo-bongo land and its "clean behind the fridge, woman" notions proved a happier home for them.
Apparently 63 Tory MPs want all Covid laws removed by May. Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate? Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
We should all want that.
If all over 50s are vaccinated, all under 50s who are vulnerable are vaccinated, the prevalence across the country has been squished and the R rate under control from most of the adult population being vaccinated then there should be little reason for draconian laws.
Wanting it and demanding it be set in stone regardless of what happens are two very different things.
One of the weaknesses with the current ‘path out of lockdown’ demands is that they want dates rather than the situation to be the deciding factor.
As we saw in Wales in November, this is a very bad idea.
The difference between now and Wales in November is the dates are tied to the situation.
Wales in November didn't give long enough for anything to take effect and many of us foresaw that from the start.
Now and by May there will have been many months to take effect but more importantly the vaccines too. The vaccines are working to a timetable which makes it far more viable to set out a timetable now.
Mr. Doethur, it underestimates Hannibal massively.
He was stomping around Italy for more than twice as long as World War Two lasted, and the best anyone managed was a score draw against him. That's incredible from a logistical, strategic, and tactical perspective.
I only know a bit about Rommel, and he does sound an impressive leader, but the scale of difference is immense.
Rommel is so much like Hannibal.
Both are losers who ended up committing suicide following their shameful failures and defeats.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Just read the article, look at the numbers and stop digging.
I have read the article.
The numbers are clear, if the SNP get an indyref2 it would be because the only way Labour can form a government is with SNP support ie Labour would likely have 275 MPs or less, if that referendum was then lost to the Scottish nationalists the tidal wave of English nationalism to the Tories in response would become a Tsunami. It would just be a matter of time before the inevitable Tory landslide in England and Wales, Starmer already having had to resign of course having lost the Union.
If having won an independence referendum the SNP then took no further part in propping up Labour the Tories could even come to power without an election
One appreciates why the New Zealand Government is coming under pressure re: the lack of vaccinations. The flipside of a successful elimination campaign is that the potential costs of letting the disease re-establish are so huge that finding any cases at all in the community = panic and lockdowns.
NZ and other so far low-prevalence countries may suffer in future as the virus "fills the gaps". No natural immunity - If they don`t vaccinate they`ll be in trouble.
New Zealand and Australia are going to be cut off until they've completed their vaccination programmes. I believe that the Australian Government has already made it clear that the borders won't be reopening for the rest of this year at least. New Zealand might take longer than Australia does - it's a smaller country but insofar as I'm aware it has no capacity for the manufacture of vaccines.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Just read the article, look at the numbers and stop digging.
I have read the article.
The numbers are clear, if the SNP get an indyref2 it would be because the only way Labour can form a government is with SNP support ie Labour would likely have 275 MPs or less, if that referendum was then lost to the Scottish nationalists the tidal wave of English nationalism to the Tories in response would become a Tsunami. It would just be a matter of time before the inevitable Tory landslide in England and Wales, Starmer already having had to resign of course having lost the Union.
Then you need to learn to read. Labour could get more, considerably more, than 275 seats and still need SNP support. That’s even accepting your implausible assumption that Labour would only grant an independence referendum if they needed SNP support to outnumber the Conservatives.
A enlightening thread on someone who one PBer called the smart young face of the new right. @OnLocals is new to me, is it just another iteration of a platform for right wing grifters that isn’t Twitter? Seem to be a lot of the usual suspects fluffing for it.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
I absolutely agree.
It is one of many great things about OGH is that he allows thread writers to explore nuance rather than go for tweet length threads which are the epitome of simplicity and anti-nuance.
So anyone who bemoans the length of PB threads are the ones encouraging social media simplicity and the loss of nuance.
As the King of nuance and subtlety, I really do appreciate OGH giving me the opportunity to do threads.
You are as subtle as Good Queen Bess in the Blackadder series.
(Which actually links quite nicely to the thread header.)
Professionally speaking, I'm noted for my nuances.
Personally speaking, a friend once said that I was as subtle as a brick through a window.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Just read the article, look at the numbers and stop digging.
I have read the article.
The numbers are clear, if the SNP get an indyref2 it would be because the only way Labour can form a government is with SNP support ie Labour would likely have 275 MPs or less, if that referendum was then lost to the Scottish nationalists the tidal wave of English nationalism to the Tories in response would become a Tsunami. It would just be a matter of time before the inevitable Tory landslide in England and Wales, Starmer already having had to resign of course having lost the Union.
If having won an independence referendum the SNP then took no further part in propping up Labour the Tories could even come to power without an election
Why would Mr Starmer resign? It wouldn't have been his party which smashed the UK. Mr Lloyd George didn't resign when the Irish secured independence.
A enlightening thread on someone who one PBer called the smart young face of the new right. @OnLocals is new to me, is it just another iteration of a platform for right wing grifters that isn’t Twitter? Seem to be a lot of the usual suspects fluffing for it.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
Because they thin the Unionist side would lose! That said, I also think that the best chance of a No vote is for Labour to be in power at Westminster, so it could be that we are both right in the sense that there will be no agreement but, coincidentally, there will be a referendum if we see the SNP back a Labour minority budget or two first!
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Just read the article, look at the numbers and stop digging.
I have read the article.
The numbers are clear, if the SNP get an indyref2 it would be because the only way Labour can form a government is with SNP support ie Labour would likely have 275 MPs or less, if that referendum was then lost to the Scottish nationalists the tidal wave of English nationalism to the Tories in response would become a Tsunami. It would just be a matter of time before the inevitable Tory landslide in England and Wales, Starmer already having had to resign of course having lost the Union.
Then you need to learn to read. Labour could get more, considerably more, than 275 seats and still need SNP support. That’s even accepting your implausible assumption that Labour would only grant an independence referendum if they needed SNP support to outnumber the Conservatives.
Not if they get LD, SDLP and Alliance and PC and Green support and combined that has more MPs than the Tories (the DUP much less likely to support the Tories due to the border in the Irish Sea too).
The SNP would not put the Tories in as that guarantees they lose their seats back to Labour.
There is no upside to Labour for an independence referendum, loss of Scottish MPs makes it more difficult for Labour to win a majority again and would derail a first Starmer term, they would prefer to focus on devomax for Scotland and regional assemblies for England, only adding an indyref2 too if that was the price of SNP support they needed for power
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
At the moment, the Tories would lose more MPs than Labour would if Scotland went independent. And the SNP don't vote on purely English matters.
A enlightening thread on someone who one PBer called the smart young face of the new right. @OnLocals is new to me, is it just another iteration of a platform for right wing grifters that isn’t Twitter? Seem to be a lot of the usual suspects fluffing for it.
Locals is a little like Facebook and YouTube, but with a paid subscription element like Patreon and Onlyfans. It means that creators can earn money, and the quality of comments is much higher because only subscribers can post.
Was set up by Dave Rubin, among others. He’s got a number of high profile members such as Tulsi Gabbard to join so far. It’s set up so that creators own their content, and there’s no monetisation of data but instead a commitment to freedom of speech.
Not, as far as I can see, a right-wing echo-chamber.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
I guess it depends whether you see democracy as a principle that is negotiable. If chippy English nationalists want to convert Scotland into a colony, I suppose they might try (Boris Johnson is showing every sign of considering just this). I would have thought, however, that the Labour Party would be more principled than that.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
At the moment, the Tories would lose more MPs than Labour would if Scotland went independent. And the SNP don't vote on purely English matters.
Actually, is that last point being properly considered in the discussion this morning, I wonder? With EVEL now in force.
There is a hole in his [Hancock's] plan so big that it can be seen by a moon-based astronaut with a foggy visor. It has little of substance to say about the crisis in adult social care. The pandemic has taken more than 25,000 lives in care homes and pitilessly underlined the myriad problems in the sector. On the day that he first stood outside Number 10, Boris Johnson declared that he was determined to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve”. Since when, no plan has materialised. If he ever really possessed one, he appears to have mislaid it. Or perhaps Dilyn the Downing Street dog has eaten it. Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success.
He makes a case for urgency on the grounds that we need to get on with implementing the lessons from the coronavirus. That sounds reasonable until you remember that the government of which Mr Hancock is a member is led by Boris Johnson. The prime minister keeps resisting demands for a public inquiry on the grounds that we can’t “learn the lessons” until the crisis is over. Embarking on another round of NHS “reform” does not make much sense until we have a complete understanding of what worked and what didn’t during the gravest public health emergency in a century. You can’t put things right until you know precisely what went wrong.
"Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success."
Always the same problem. The old (and, by extension, their expectant heirs) won't pay. The shrinking working age population can't pay. So lofty words are uttered, but nothing is actually done.
Social care policy consists, in crude terms, of rationing the care and hoping that too many people don't moan too loudly. Because the alternative is something like the dementia tax, a policy so catastrophic that it very nearly let Jeremy Corbyn take over. There'll be no repetition of that mistake.
The 'Sunday Black_Rook' is a good deal more attuned to the political realities of the situation than the 'Sunday Rawnsley'.
If Dilyn did indeed eat the plans, it confirms my opinion that he is by far the smartest political operator in the Tory Government. And by far the prettiest.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Just read the article, look at the numbers and stop digging.
I have read the article.
The numbers are clear, if the SNP get an indyref2 it would be because the only way Labour can form a government is with SNP support ie Labour would likely have 275 MPs or less, if that referendum was then lost to the Scottish nationalists the tidal wave of English nationalism to the Tories in response would become a Tsunami. It would just be a matter of time before the inevitable Tory landslide in England and Wales, Starmer already having had to resign of course having lost the Union.
If having won an independence referendum the SNP then took no further part in propping up Labour the Tories could even come to power without an election
Why would Mr Starmer resign? It wouldn't have been his party which smashed the UK. Mr Lloyd George didn't resign when the Irish secured independence.
Yes it would, it would have been his party which granted the SNP an indyref2 they lost.
Lloyd George fought the War of Independence with Irish nationalists for several years, even sending the Black and Tans over and when the final peace settlement came did not agree to a United Ireland either but split Ireland in two with Northern Ireland staying part of the UK
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Just read the article, look at the numbers and stop digging.
I have read the article.
The numbers are clear, if the SNP get an indyref2 it would be because the only way Labour can form a government is with SNP support ie Labour would likely have 275 MPs or less, if that referendum was then lost to the Scottish nationalists the tidal wave of English nationalism to the Tories in response would become a Tsunami. It would just be a matter of time before the inevitable Tory landslide in England and Wales, Starmer already having had to resign of course having lost the Union.
If having won an independence referendum the SNP then took no further part in propping up Labour the Tories could even come to power without an election
Why would Mr Starmer resign? It wouldn't have been his party which smashed the UK. Mr Lloyd George didn't resign when the Irish secured independence.
Yes it would, it would have been his party which granted the SNP an indyref2 they lost.
Lloyd George fought the War of Independence with Irish nationalists for several years, even sending the Black and Tans over and when the final peace settlement came did not agree to a United Ireland either but split Ireland in two with Northern Ireland staying part of the UK
But everyone will know it was Mr Johnson and the Tories whose 'fault' it really was and who wouldn't pick up and look after the baby.
Tempting Providence, but Foakes seems to be doing a very good job. Dragged over to Surrey by the ECB 'because he'd have better chances than at Essex' just before Foster retired, perhaps from Essex' point of view it was a good thing, because we'd surely have lost him much of the time to England.
A enlightening thread on someone who one PBer called the smart young face of the new right. @OnLocals is new to me, is it just another iteration of a platform for right wing grifters that isn’t Twitter? Seem to be a lot of the usual suspects fluffing for it.
Locals is a little like Facebook and YouTube, but with a paid subscription element like Patreon and Onlyfans. It means that creators can earn money, and the quality of comments is much higher because only subscribers can post.
Was set up by Dave Rubin, among others. He’s got a number of high profile members such as Tulsi Gabbard to join so far. It’s set up so that creators own their content and there’s no monetisation of data.
Not, as far as I can see, a right-wing echo-chamber.
Oh God, did you have to mention Onlyfans?
Now I've got images of Darren Grimes doing 'interesting' things for his subscribers.
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
I think the assumption underpinning the article is wrong - that a minority Labour government agrees an independence referendum in return for SNP support. I think it is far more likely that Labour will not agree anything and will dare the SNP - which declares itself to be an anti-Tory, centre-left, anti-austerity party - to work with the Tories to defeat a centre-left, anti-austerity, Westminster government that is also promising to conduct a full review of the current UK constitutional settlement with a view to devolving more powers.
If the SNP have a democratic mandate for a referendum, and they look set to get one in May, Labour will respect that. Why wouldn’t they?
At a guess,
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour 2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM 3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
At the moment, the Tories would lose more MPs than Labour would if Scotland went independent. And the SNP don't vote on purely English matters.
At the moment most Scottish MPs are SNP and Labour are more likely to get into power with SNP support than to win a majority in England
If Labour came to power as a minority government in 2024 reliant on SNP support and then gave the SNP an independence referendum they then lost, even after a devomax proposal, then that would be dire for Labour.
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations
I suggest you read the thread header. You might learn why your Second is not particularly likely,
If Labour had given the SNP an independence referendum it would likely be because they were reliant on SNP support and they did not have a majority in England and Wales but only a majority in the UK due to mainly SNP Scottish MPs.
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
Just read the article, look at the numbers and stop digging.
I have read the article.
The numbers are clear, if the SNP get an indyref2 it would be because the only way Labour can form a government is with SNP support ie Labour would likely have 275 MPs or less, if that referendum was then lost to the Scottish nationalists the tidal wave of English nationalism to the Tories in response would become a Tsunami. It would just be a matter of time before the inevitable Tory landslide in England and Wales, Starmer already having had to resign of course having lost the Union.
If having won an independence referendum the SNP then took no further part in propping up Labour the Tories could even come to power without an election
Why would Mr Starmer resign? It wouldn't have been his party which smashed the UK. Mr Lloyd George didn't resign when the Irish secured independence.
Yes it would, it would have been his party which granted the SNP an indyref2 they lost.
Lloyd George fought the War of Independence with Irish nationalists for several years, even sending the Black and Tans over and when the final peace settlement came did not agree to a United Ireland either but split Ireland in two with Northern Ireland staying part of the UK
But everyone will know it was Mr Johnson and the Tories whose 'fault' it really was and who wouldn't pick up and look after the baby.
No they wouldn't, history would record Starmer as having lost the Union by giving into the nationalists on indyref2 and then not having the strategy to win it, Boris would go down as the man who stood up to the nationalists by refusing a legal indyref2 and Cameron as the PM who preserved the Union by winning indyref1 which Starmer threw away by losing indyref2.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
I absolutely agree.
It is one of many great things about OGH is that he allows thread writers to explore nuance rather than go for tweet length threads which are the epitome of simplicity and anti-nuance.
So anyone who bemoans the length of PB threads are the ones encouraging social media simplicity and the loss of nuance.
As the King of nuance and subtlety, I really do appreciate OGH giving me the opportunity to do threads.
You are as subtle as Good Queen Bess in the Blackadder series.
(Which actually links quite nicely to the thread header.)
Professionally speaking, I'm noted for my nuances.
Personally speaking, a friend once said that I was as subtle as a brick through a window.
The Blackadder reference is ‘about as subtle as a rhinoceros horn up the backside.’
I wonder whether Mike and the Mechanics singer Paul Carrack is a fan of test cricket. If he is he might be surprised to hear his vocals on Ace's 1974 hit How Long Has This Been Going On being played between overs on the TV commercials.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
I absolutely agree.
It is one of many great things about OGH is that he allows thread writers to explore nuance rather than go for tweet length threads which are the epitome of simplicity and anti-nuance.
So anyone who bemoans the length of PB threads are the ones encouraging social media simplicity and the loss of nuance.
As the King of nuance and subtlety, I really do appreciate OGH giving me the opportunity to do threads.
You are as subtle as Good Queen Bess in the Blackadder series.
(Which actually links quite nicely to the thread header.)
Professionally speaking, I'm noted for my nuances.
Personally speaking, a friend once said that I was as subtle as a brick through a window.
The Blackadder reference is ‘about as subtle as a rhinoceros horn up the backside.’
There's only one episode of Blackadder II that I've committed entirely to memory. Beer.
Mostly because I also have a puritanical aunt like Lady Whiteadder who didn't take my life choices well.
Unlike Alastair's covid piece this time last year, this one will not age well. There is so much speculation and the final paragraph contains a fatal flaw. Stating that the English think Sturgeon has handled the pandemic best (which is no longer true) is not the same as saying she is a popular choice amongst English voters in politics at large. That's a non sequitur.
I fear this piece is wish-casting.
I know that others keep pointing this out to you, but the PM has NOT handled the pandemic best.
And you think *that* is doing the best job? Madness.
Er, did you actually read my message? I never once mentioned that the PM has handled this pandemic best. Early on, it was shockingly badly handled.
What I actually wrote is that simply because Sturgeon was viewed as having handled it best, which is no longer the case (viz. vaccination), does not mean she is liked or trusted on wider political issues south of the border. She is greatly feared.
Yes. If it is no longer the case that Sturgeon has handled it best then you are saying that Johnson has handled it best, aren't you?
No. That's far too simplistic.
Boris made terrible mistakes early on and Sturgeon was relatively assured. But these days Sturgeon is looking a lot less impressive, whilst Boris has really started to get his act together. We're broadly getting the policies right now and all of it overshadowed by a stunning vaccination rollout, for which Boris will take a lot of the credit, even if many others should share the plaudits.
OK. So back to the question. Someone is handling it best - you said Sturgeon *was*. If she no longer is handling it best, who is in your opinion?
Too simplistic. I bemoan the social media simplicity and loss of nuance.
I absolutely agree.
It is one of many great things about OGH is that he allows thread writers to explore nuance rather than go for tweet length threads which are the epitome of simplicity and anti-nuance.
So anyone who bemoans the length of PB threads are the ones encouraging social media simplicity and the loss of nuance.
As the King of nuance and subtlety, I really do appreciate OGH giving me the opportunity to do threads.
You are as subtle as Good Queen Bess in the Blackadder series.
(Which actually links quite nicely to the thread header.)
Professionally speaking, I'm noted for my nuances.
Personally speaking, a friend once said that I was as subtle as a brick through a window.
The Blackadder reference is ‘about as subtle as a rhinoceros horn up the backside.’
There's only one episode of Blackadder II that I've committed entirely to memory. Beer.
Mostly because I also have a puritanical aunt like Lady Whiteadder who didn't take my life choices well.
The reference is actually from Blackadder’s Christmas Carol.
Comments
https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-schools-caution-over-pupil-return-covid-progress-stalls
I don’t honestly see what they would have to lose by putting the provisional start date for early years back to 8th March. That would bring them in line with England and give more time to play with for secondaries, which are the most dangerous ones in epidemiological terms.
Talking of being in line, that was annoying from Rahane. England now unlikely to save the follow on.
https://twitter.com/markperryman/status/1357311638987304969?s=21
Do they think that the virus has a timetable or that it will definately not mutate?
Should any of them not be considered Nutters?
8 down now, follow-on a real possibility after tea.
Failing that, the Government is going to have to pick up the pieces in the aftermath of Covid and may very well have to cope with significant structural unemployment. A lot of businesses - notably in bricks and mortar retail - have already folded or will do so; others have been forced to adapt to new ways of doing things and may no longer need so many employees. Rishi Sunak's exalted status as the nation's favourite politician is unlikely to survive the end of furlough and a programme of tax rises.
Labour has a massive task on its hands to get all the way to a majority in one go, but the possibility of a hung Parliament come the next election seems all too realistic.
D’ye think it was a genius move for a ppb in Scotland?
We may squeak into a third day.
If it's possible to remove such restrictions that would be great. But acting according to the calendar and not the situation on the ground is intensely stupid.
If all over 50s are vaccinated, all under 50s who are vulnerable are vaccinated, the prevalence across the country has been squished and the R rate under control from most of the adult population being vaccinated then there should be little reason for draconian laws.
Some might say it's a bit snowflakey to accuse someone of being a snowflake for accurately responding to your post.
Would you be appalled if a Texan PPB had the stars and stripes in the background?
First Starmer would have to resign of course having broken up the Union. Second, the Tories would now have a majority in rUK and demand a change of government and no confidence the government at every opportunity, a VONC it could win if the SNP no longer backed the government as they were leaving the country and Westminster. Third, a likely snap general election would surely see the Tories win a landslide majority on a tidal wave of English nationalism to ensure a hardline and no concessions whatsover in the subsequent Scexit negotiations.
On the other more positive side for Labour if they gave the SNP an independence referendum they won and Scots narrowly voted to stay in the UK, then at the next general election they could hope to win back lots of their former Scottish seats from the SNP, Scottish nationalism having been dealt a fatal blow, thus delivering a Labour majority across the UK, much as the Tories winning seats from the LDs finally delivered them a majority in 2015
I actually think that by the end of May, even Tier 1 restrictions could be hard to justify.
Our vaccine roll-out programme is stunning. That doesn't negate the many tens of thousands this government killed unnecessarily, the multiple and continued bungles, the ongoing lack of any support for large sectors of the economy etc etc etc. We could be enjoying our stunning vaccine roll-out having NOT fucked up everything before that.
So yes, Sturgeon remains the UK leader who has handled the pandemic the best . Despite your "I'm not a Tory now honest" Johnson fangirlism.
I'm increasingly of the view though that the economy isn't critical to that many voters. Radical, I know, and it's a change in my position from, say, 10 years ago.
Boris will portray Starmer as the man who would have tied us to EU regulation including the EMA. You know, the kind which stopped all their citizens getting vaccinated.
Curtains for Labour. Sadly.
But these MPs are suggesting now that restrictions should be lifted ANYWAY at a specific time in the future regardless.
Sorry, they qualify as Nutters.
https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=irl&areas=e92000001&areas=s92000003&areas=w92000004&areas=n92000002&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnj&areasRegional=usaz&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usnd&areasRegional=ussd&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-09-01&values=deaths
It's got buried in the vaccine good news, but Boris's last visible mess-up was only six weeks ago. Remember opening schools for a day? Quarantine hotels don't look impressively done either.
There is a hole in his [Hancock's] plan so big that it can be seen by a moon-based astronaut with a foggy visor. It has little of substance to say about the crisis in adult social care. The pandemic has taken more than 25,000 lives in care homes and pitilessly underlined the myriad problems in the sector. On the day that he first stood outside Number 10, Boris Johnson declared that he was determined to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve”. Since when, no plan has materialised. If he ever really possessed one, he appears to have mislaid it. Or perhaps Dilyn the Downing Street dog has eaten it. Or, most likely, there is some kind of plan, but the Treasury is balking at the cost. The health secretary expresses an ambition to integrate care for the elderly, but that cannot be fulfilled without a system of financing solid enough to ensure it is a success.
He makes a case for urgency on the grounds that we need to get on with implementing the lessons from the coronavirus. That sounds reasonable until you remember that the government of which Mr Hancock is a member is led by Boris Johnson. The prime minister keeps resisting demands for a public inquiry on the grounds that we can’t “learn the lessons” until the crisis is over. Embarking on another round of NHS “reform” does not make much sense until we have a complete understanding of what worked and what didn’t during the gravest public health emergency in a century. You can’t put things right until you know precisely what went wrong.
Realise that you may not be.
It is one of many great things about OGH is that he allows thread writers to explore nuance rather than go for tweet length threads which are the epitome of simplicity and anti-nuance.
So anyone who bemoans the length of PB threads are the ones encouraging social media simplicity and the loss of nuance.
As the King of nuance and subtlety, I really do appreciate OGH giving me the opportunity to do threads.
One of the weaknesses with the current ‘path out of lockdown’ demands is that they want dates rather than the situation to be the deciding factor.
As we saw in Wales in November, this is a very bad idea.
Always the same problem. The old (and, by extension, their expectant heirs) won't pay. The shrinking working age population can't pay. So lofty words are uttered, but nothing is actually done.
Social care policy consists, in crude terms, of rationing the care and hoping that too many people don't moan too loudly. Because the alternative is something like the dementia tax, a policy so catastrophic that it very nearly let Jeremy Corbyn take over. There'll be no repetition of that mistake.
(Which actually links quite nicely to the thread header.)
So the Tories would indeed have a majority in rUK. If Labour gave too many concessions to the SNP and relied on SNP support to get its way even after a Scottish independence vote then that Tory majority in rUK would turn into a landslide Tory majority in rUK at the next general election on a tidal wave of English nationalism to stand up to the SNP under a strong Tory government in England and Wales to replace the weak Labour government which the SNP had just wiped the floor with
The next election will be about constitutional issues, despite people being bored sick of them. SNP want their referendum, and the Labour view on that is a critical decision for them. I think it winnable for the Union under a Labour government, but far from certain.
The post Brexit debate will centre on two issues:
1) Free markets or protectionism? Brexit was won by a coalition of Free marketeer leaders and a voter base who want to roll back globalism, and protect jobs from foreigners. That is not an easy combination to continue. One or other has to give. If the Tories follow their Singapore on Thames instincts (never on Trent or Tees...) the backlash from the purple wall could be fatal to their majority.
2) How much to soften/harden the border with the EU/NI. Smoothing trade and permitting limited FoM for essential workers requires some degree of pooled sovereignty.
Wales in November didn't give long enough for anything to take effect and many of us foresaw that from the start.
Now and by May there will have been many months to take effect but more importantly the vaccines too. The vaccines are working to a timetable which makes it far more viable to set out a timetable now.
Both are losers who ended up committing suicide following their shameful failures and defeats.
The numbers are clear, if the SNP get an indyref2 it would be because the only way Labour can form a government is with SNP support ie Labour would likely have 275 MPs or less, if that referendum was then lost to the Scottish nationalists the tidal wave of English nationalism to the Tories in response would become a Tsunami. It would just be a matter of time before the inevitable Tory landslide in England and Wales, Starmer already having had to resign of course having lost the Union.
If having won an independence referendum the SNP then took no further part in propping up Labour the Tories could even come to power without an election
I see your tenuous grasp on nuance and historical understanding has slipped away like Liverpool's title prospects.
https://twitter.com/sammisam147/status/1360662782400729089?s=21
Personally speaking, a friend once said that I was as subtle as a brick through a window.
1. Scottish secession = suicide for English Labour
2. Scottish secession also = career suicide (and historic ignominy) for a defeated Labour PM
3. It's not the job of a Unionist political party to facilitate Scottish nationalists
You may be right and Starmer, assuming it's him making the call, may decide that lofty principle dictates giving the SNP a second roll of the dice. But a stalling strategy, especially one which may result in giving the Scottish electorate the added alternative of a loose confederacy as well as a clean break, doesn't sound wholly implausible.
The SNP would not put the Tories in as that guarantees they lose their seats back to Labour.
There is no upside to Labour for an independence referendum, loss of Scottish MPs makes it more difficult for Labour to win a majority again and would derail a first Starmer term, they would prefer to focus on devomax for Scotland and regional assemblies for England, only adding an indyref2 too if that was the price of SNP support they needed for power
Was set up by Dave Rubin, among others. He’s got a number of high profile members such as Tulsi Gabbard to join so far. It’s set up so that creators own their content, and there’s no monetisation of data but instead a commitment to freedom of speech.
Not, as far as I can see, a right-wing echo-chamber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodcock_(cricket_writer)
If Dilyn did indeed eat the plans, it confirms my opinion that he is by far the smartest political operator in the Tory Government. And by far the prettiest.
Smart, Welsh and Sassy.
Lloyd George fought the War of Independence with Irish nationalists for several years, even sending the Black and Tans over and when the final peace settlement came did not agree to a United Ireland either but split Ireland in two with Northern Ireland staying part of the UK
Now I've got images of Darren Grimes doing 'interesting' things for his subscribers.
Hurrah.
Shame he edged one immediately afterwards.
Maybe that will change with Broad’s tenure at the crease.
Mostly because I also have a puritanical aunt like Lady Whiteadder who didn't take my life choices well.
The second series is my favourite.
How many will India look to make, and can Pujara bat?
Good to see Vardy fit again, and developing a great partnership with Barnes.